11] 


fill 

I'll''*; i 




1 


ill: 













HRsI 









Qass 

Book , I 3 



!U- 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

OR 

CLASS versus COUNTRY 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

OR 

CLASS versus COUNTRY 

Considerations for American 
Voters 



By 
CHARLES NORMAN FAY 



PRIVATELY PRINTED AT 

THE UNIVERSITY PRESS 
1920 



Copyright, 1920 
By Charles Norman Fay 



Third Edition 



NOV - 5 1937 



o^ 






CONTENTS 

CHAPTER PAGE 

Dedication to Press Writers of America . vii 

I Gist of this Book i 

II Issues and Point of View 7 

III A. F. L. Growth and Income .... 17 

IV A. F. L. Constitution and Appeal ... 22 
V Right to Organize, etc. The Gary Case . 27 

VI u Labor not a Commodity of Commerce " . 41 

VII Centralized Control 47 

VIII Failure to Benefit Workers 58 

IX Inefficiency. Gospel of Sloth .... 65 

X Irresponsibility 75 

XI Political Evolution and Intention ... 79 
XII Social Justice. Moral Basis of Capitalism. 

Law of Supply and Demand .... 90 

XIII Mischief of Centralization 104 

XIV Centralized Arbitration Fails 112 

XV Labor Leadership. Mr. Gompers . . . 126 

XVI The Railway Brotherhoods 133 

XVII Autocracy of Capital 136 

XVIII " Democratization of Industry." " Recog- 
nition of the Union." The Closed Shop 144 
XIX Profit Sharing. Ford and Others . . . 155 
XX Gompers vs. Lenine and Debs . . . . 164 
XXI Demagogy and Bureaucracy. League of 

Nations Labor Bureau 167 

[v] 



CONTENTS 

CHAPTER „ PAGE 

XXII Carroll Wright Statistics of Strikes and 

Lockouts 178 

XXIII Collective Bargaining. Pros and Cons . 18 J 

XXIV Coercion. Violence. Picketing . . . . 189 
XXV Union Propaganda. Schools, Colleges, 

Government Departments 192 

XXVI Profiteering 197 

XXVII Eight-Hour and Shorter Day 202 

XXVIII Successful Cooperation 207 

XXIX Summary of Facts and Conclusions . . . 213 

XXX Remedies. Popular Action. "S. O. S." 218 

XXXI Remedies, Legislative 227 

XXXII Remedies, Administrative 233 

XXXIII Remedies, Employers'. Time Contracts. 

Strike Insurance 238 

XXXIV Remedies Within the Unions .... 245 
XXXV Valedictory. Least Government. Least 

Taxation 251 

Postscript. Republican, Democratic, 

A. F. L. Conventions 261 

Appendix. Open Letter to Samuel 

Gompers 269 



[vi] 



DEDICATION 

TO THE 

PRESS WRITERS OF AMERICA 

Will you permit me, gentlemen of the press, to 
take the liberty of dedicating to you these considera- 
tions of a retired looker-on upon certainly one of the 
most interesting, perhaps one of the most vital, 
factors in American industry and politics, in the hope 
that your attention may be attracted at least to the 
dedication itself, and thence to the substance of the 
book. 

In order that you may know that I do not write 
too ignorantly, may I say that for many years prior 
to 1893 I was a public service corporation executive 
in Chicago, successively the working head of the 
telephone, gas, and one of the electric companies; 
and afterwards as head of a private manufacturing 
company was vice president for Illinois of the Na- 
tional Association of Manufacturers, and chairman 
of its Strike Insurance Committee. I was also one 
of the committee on western litigations conducted by 
the Anti-Boycott Association, — from 1900 to 1904, 
I think. In these various capacities I was for some 
time much in contact with Organized Labor and be- 
came a student of its activities, and an occasional 
writer on them since my retirement from active 
business. I have now no personal interest to bias my 
judgment, though of course it has been deeply in- 
fluenced by personal experiences. 

I would courteously urge you, as keen and public- 
spirited observers of events, to study the facts and 

[vii] 



DEDICATION 

conclusions I present, and to give them such dis- 
cussion and publicity as their importance seems to 
you to deserve. During the past three years I have 
offered their substance in various forms to journals 
and magazines which had occasionally printed my 
offerings, but always in vain, until I realized that 
editors, though otherwise receptive, do not like to 
print what one might call unfashionable stuff. In 
other words, the press, like the politicians, tends to 
reflect rather than to form public opinion. 

For instance, the editor of a well-known weekly, 
in refusing an "Open Letter to Samuel Gompers" 
comparing Gompers' militarism and autocracy to 
German Kaiserism, wrote me in December, 191 8, 
as follows: 

" I have read it with interest, but I feel sure that this is 
not the time to print it; certainly not in the ... So far as 
the ... is concerned, it is a believer in the principles un- 
derlying the trades-union movement. The trades-unions 
have been guilty of grave errors, and sometimes of grave 
crimes; but so have the capitalists. One reason why the 
. . . movement is of value just now, is because it is unitedly, 
solidly, and uncompromisingly against Bolshevism, Socialism. 
. . . At this juncture we ought to cooperate with Mr. 
Gompers as far as possible in his work." 

And the editor of an equally prominent monthly 
wrote during the same month as follows : 

" I have been much interested in your piece ; but I doubt 
whether it would serve a useful purpose to sound at this 
time the note of conservative individualism. The center of 
gravity in these matters has been shifting a good deal during 
the last few years, and trades-union methods seem less ex- 
treme than they once did." 

Neither editor denied the truth of the open letter, 
but both simply preferred to swallow Mr. Gompers 

[ viii ] 



DEDICATION 

whole. He had them quite hypnotized for the 
moment. 

Seeing that the minds of such thoughtful and 
patriotic men as these editors, and of such eminent 
citizens as, for instance, the prominent committee 
members of the National Civic Federation, and 
moreover of a very large number of less conspicuous 
men and women quite as important and sincere as 
myself, run so directly counter to truth and right as 
I see them in this matter, ought I not in ordinary 
modesty and common sense to " go 'way back and 
sit down," without lifting puny pen to assert them? 
Perhaps, as a matter of modesty and good sense, 
yes; but as one of conviction and plain duty, it seems 
to me I ought, if I can, to bring truth and right as 
I see them to trial by jury of wide public opinion, 
engaging the best counsel, yourselves, gentlemen of 
the press, to present the case. Nobody but myself 
can suffer from an adverse verdict on my whimsies. 
Hence this book. 

Meantime I would not appear to you superficial 
in presenting Organized Labor as a prime cause 
rather than a by-product of existing Social Unrest. 
There may, indeed, be a more fundamental and 
burning sense of wrong done by capital to labor than 
I am aware of, which must sometime, as agitators 
say, burst out like a lava flood to devastate the coun- 
try; but I do not believe it. I was never able to find 
a general temper of revolt among my own employees, 
with hundreds of whom I was for long years fairly 
well acquainted, nor was such temper noted by some 
two thousand employers with whom I corresponded 
on this very subject some years ago. We found 
neither elemental social injustice nor consciousness 
thereof among the majority of our working people; 
that is, on large scale or in many instances. Most of 

[ix] 



DEDICATION 

them recognized that they were fairly well treated, 
and though some of us, myself included, had had labor 
trouble, we could in every case put our finger on the 
particular agitator, usually a paid organizer from 
some labor union that had carefully stirred up or 
created the specific grievance that developed " un- 
rest" 

I would not deny the world-wide and age-old fact 
that brains fare better than muscle in this world, and 
I will grant for the sake of the argument the fre- 
quent drastic claim that two per cent of the popula- 
tion of the United States own sixty per cent of the 
wealth; but if so, I submit that the two per cent own 
the sixty per cent because they largely organized its 
creation, and alone are capable of its accumulation 
and use. I further submit that the majority of 
Americans, the large majority, are perfectly well 
aware of that fact, and accept its social justice, at 
least as applied to men whom they personally know. 
Though it is perhaps human nature to envy an abler 
and thriftier man, and even grudge him a little his 
larger share of this world's goods, it is also human 
nature, larger and nobler and common to most of 
us, honestly and fairly to admit that he deserves his 
success and respect his right to it. I am glad to be- 
lieve that generosity rather than envy lies at the 
bottom of the American conception of Social Justice 
today as in the time of our fathers, who embodied 
the rights of private property and individual lib- 
erty in the constitutional guarantees handed down 
to us. 

This book is therefore frankly a defense of capital 
against the organized attack of labor; first, because 
of my convictions as to social justice, but last, and all 
the time, because labor does not in practice accu- 
mulate or use capital. Yet accumulation and use of 

[x] 



DEDICATION 

capital is the vital thing, far more important to 
society, especially to labor, than its distribution. 

Please do not, therefore, gentlemen, class me as 
a reactionary, or as more " reactionary than the 
multiplication table," to borrow Governor Coolidge's 
felicitous phrase; but rather call me a pragmatist, 
if I understand the use of William James' famous 
expression, a believer in men and methods that stand 
the test of time, and actually help the world. I wish 
at least to be absolutely honest and fair in what I 
say and try to support by proof. I am well aware 
that extreme severity in judgment and expression al- 
ways weakens the force of conclusions reached and 
motives imputed, as to men and acts. But a lie is a 
lie; selfish appeal is just that and nothing else; utter 
uselessness and broad failure cannot be praised as 
idealities; repudiation of contract, breach of law, and 
defense of crime cannot be disguised as virtues; 
minimizing production is the most mischievous stu- 
pidity, class politics is betrayal of democracy. 

I cannot, therefore, conscientiously regard labor 
leadership that openly stands for all of these things 
as other than thoroughly dishonest and discredited. 
While I can understand that the average unthinking 
man or woman may easily be led by sympathy for 
the poor to mistake the utter selfishness of trades- 
unionism for humanitarianism, I confess it is hard 
to admit that informed and patriotic editors should 
helplessly look to Gompers to save us from Hay- 
wood or Lenine, to the Federation or the Brother- 
hoods to supplant the I. W. W. or the Soviet. What 
difference does it make to the American who has 
worked hard and saved something whether the 
Soviet takes all his capital or Organized Labor 
takes all his income ? He starves just the same either 
way. And what does the supposedly great, free 

[xi] 



DEDICATION 

American people gain, except contempt, by feebly ' 
balancing one scare against another, by meekly ac- 
cepting lesser instead of greater tyranny? 

The letters quoted above date back more than a 
year. Today, after a thousand intervening strikes 
of all sorts and sizes, — notably, from the editorial 
point of view, the printer's strike that stopped the 
weekly above mentioned and other New York maga- 
zines last fall, — what with the Adamson Law, the 
Plumb Plan, the insistence of Labor on the right to 
strike, even " against the public safety," as Gov- 
ernor Coolidge would say, and finally with the open 
entry of Messrs. Gompers et al. into the Congres- 
sional Campaign of 1920 — the wind of public 
opinion seems to be shifting at last, to blow against 
Organized Labor, here and there. With it the 
politicians and the editors seem to be shifting too. 

If so, Messrs. the Press Writers, and if the facts 
and conclusions here set down seem to you accurate 
and just, I would courteously beg you to accept this 
dedication, and make such use as you can of this 
material. I hope too that it will appeal to the public 
direct, although addressed thus particularly to your- 
selves as their intermediary, because few men care 
to wade through solemn screeds like this. 

I am, by the way, not unmindful of the fact that 
some of you are members of a union of your craft 
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor; 
and that the unions in the printing trade are accused 
of more or less solidly muzzling the press of your 
country. But I appeal to you nevertheless with con- 
fidence, as good Americans first and good union men 
afterwards, to vindicate the honor of your great 
profession, the freedom of the press, and the patriot- 
ism of your union, by making known the truth in 
this serious matter. 

[xii] 



FOREWORD TO THIRD EDITION 

To THE WOMEN and THE LEGION 

Before passing on to my subject, let me first appeal 
to the new voters of 1920, especially the women 
and the young men of the American Legion, men 
and women keenly alive to their new powers and 
responsibilities, to study and value, severally and for 
themselves, the facts presented here. 

I put the women first, because ( 1 ) it is the family 
at home that suffers first and most from loss of 
wages and privation entailed by strikes — oftentimes 
called by Labor autocrats who themselves suffer not 
a cent's worth meantime; also because (2) it is the 
wife and children of the nonunion man against whom 
is turned the meanest and deadliest weapon of trades- 
unionism, — social ostracism among neighbors, the 
odious word " scab " shouted at women and children 
in the streets and at schools; and finally, because 
(3) in all history the women, once roused, have 
shown themselves more heroically and sometimes 
more bitterly partisan than their husbands. 

It is therefore fit and inevitable that the women 
should have their say in matters so nearly concern- 
ing the family; and it is particularly desirable that 
their conscience and intelligence should be wide 
awake now, at the beginning of their political power. 
It is vital to the family that women as voters should 

[ xiii ] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

stand for sound economics and unselfish trades- 
unionism. It is the family that most needs the pro- 
tection of the courts, and gains most by freedom of 
the law of supply and demand. No duty rests more 
squarely upon the new women-voters than the de- 
fence of the family; first by their own right thinking, 
and afterwards by its enactment into law. 

I address myself also in the same spirit to the new 
voters of the American Legion, because they are just 
now particularly exposed to the temptation, dangled 
before them by politicians who are fishing for their 
votes, to put class before country in the matter of 
bonus-legislation; to their own sure demoralization 
and the injury of free government. Inasmuch as 
this book more particularly concerns Organized 
Labor, however, the affairs of the Legion are 
touched upon thus briefly here, only because its mem- 
bers cannot consistently condemn class politics, as I 
urge them to do, on the part of the Federation of 
Labor or the Farmers' Non-Partisan League, while 
themselves pushing their own class interest. The 
splendid principles for which the Legion stands will 
doubtless in themselves suffice to govern the votes 
of its members, as occasion to cast them arises; so 
it is in confident reliance on those principles that I 
urge the Legion's new voters to vote as they shot, 
for liberty and the common good — not for the class 
advantage of any group, least of all their own. 

Let the men of the Legion beware always of the 
pension agents; of the politicians, who are always 
willing to plunder the public treasury in order to 
curry favor with a few men, and buy a few votes for 
themselves. Let not these grafters repeat the pen- 
sion grabs that have continuously, since the close of 
the Civil War, as the long lines of veterans in the 
Annual Parade of the Grand Army grew short and 

[xiv] 



i FOREWORD TO THIRD EDITION 

shorter still, called ever for more and more millions ; 
until today, alas, but a few old men remain alive 
to account for a colossal pension roll, that always 
grows and never dies. Let the country found no 
more huge fortunes of pension agents at Washington. 



O] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 



OR 



CLASS versus COUNTRY 



CHAPTER I 

GIST OF THIS BOOK 

As I am addressing myself in the first instance to 
you, gentlemen of the press, I will follow your 
fashion of giving at the outset the gist of my story, 
hoping that it may interest you enough to carry you 
on through the mass of detail that must follow, to 
support my contentions. Here it is, in brief : 

There can be no hope of reasonable relief from 
"Labor Unrest" so long as four or five million 
laborers can be fooled into paying fifty million dol- 
lars a year to a hundred thousand professional agi- 
tators that call themselves by the sounding title of 
" Organized Labor," only to bedevil their own em- 
ployers, cripple their own jobs, cut down their own 
output, and minimize their own earning power. 
Now these mischief-makers are openly going into 
our politics. 

Mr. Gompers last February served notice on the 
country, which the June Convention of the American 
Federation of Labor at Montreal has just confirmed, 
of "nonpartisan" entry of Organized Labor into 
the coming political campaign, with but a single pur- 
pose in view, namely, the class advantage of Organ- 

[i] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

ized Labor itself. This action is taken because the 
national and state administrations have for the past 
two years, in marked contrast with past subserviency 
to labor, taken notice of growing popular revolt 
against the principles, aims, and methods of the 
trades-unions. In so doing, Mr. Gompers has put 
both the great political parties between the devil of 
the labor vote and the deep sea of uncertainty as 
to public opinion; which last certainly ran for years 
with the general current of the stream of hostility 
to Wall Street and the Trusts against Capital, and 
in favor of Organized Labor as humanitarian in pur- 
pose and effect — but of late seems to grow wisely 
jealous of Labor too, as merely another trust. 

The result so far is, that the Republican Party 
platform adopted at Chicago largely sidesteps the 
labor issue, though Governor Coolidge was named 
for the Vice Presidency because he stood up against 
the Boston police strike; while the Democrats, at 
San Francisco, though not quite so definitely, rather 
sidestep too. The general question of class entry 
into politics for class advantage is meantime a very 
broad and vital one in our democracy, that will last 
in all probability over several campaigns. The pol- 
iticians will not dare take a stand upon it, for 
obvious if not very magnificent reasons. The peo- 
ple will have to make up their own minds, as so 
often before on serious public questions, and show 
the politicians unmistakably the way the wind of 
opinion blows, before the party weather vanes will 
swing the legislative mill sails into the breeze and 
the latter will begin to turn. This little book is 
intended to help in the formation of public opinion 
by condensation of the facts into convenient form, 
and by their presentation in not too ponderous 
diction. Here they are as I see them: 

[2] 



GIST OF THIS BOOK 

There has grown up among us, ostensibly for 
self-protection against capitalism and exploitation, 
huge organization of labor; with enormous income, 
— nearly fifty million dollars per annum, — contrib- 
uted by a membership of over four millions, perhaps 
half of them voters. Four fifths of this great in- 
come goes for salaries and expenses of a labor 
bureaucracy numbering perhaps one hundred to one 
hundred and fifty thousand men and women; whose 
main business is enlarging the organization, getting 
and keeping members and collecting their dues, and 
whose secondary business is distributing union bene- 
fits and managing occasional strikes. The excel- 
lent livelihood and the personal careers of this 
bureaucracy depend upon its success in creating 
" industrial unrest " ; and on the strength of it re- 
cruiting ever vaster armies of working men and 
women, centralized and massed as a fighting force 
against Capital — carrying the impression and in- 
deed the reality of formidable power, industrial 
and political. 

From the standpoint of the able and ambitious 
men who have for forty years built up this great 
machine, it is a vast success. It has attained the 
great size and income aforesaid, has stirred up 
discontent everywhere, has caused some seventy 
thousand recorded strikes, has cut down the pro- 
ductivity of our labor fully one third, has largely 
contributed to double our cost of living, and has 
perhaps permanently injected a class issue into our 
politics. 

By virtue of colossal losses already inflicted on 
industry and the community, and by threat of worse 
yet to come, the great labor leaders, such as Messrs. 
Gompers, the late John Mitchell, W. B. Wilson, 
Stone, and others, have made themselves well off, 

[3] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

powerful, and world-famous personages. Natu- 
rally, they are pretty sure to go right on running 
their huge mill, grinding out its daily grist of strikes 
and dollars. It may be, too, that they sincerely be- 
lieve in their own mission. 

Then there is a smaller group among us, of 
savers and investors, collectively known as Capital 
but unorganized; ^organized, on the contrary, by 
war-aftermath, strained by present and doubtful of 
future conditions, political and economical, it has 
as yet formed no solid front in its own defense 
against labor, government, or public opinion. As 
the English statesman, Winston Churchill, said last 
December: " Capitalism does nothing to establish its 
own moral basis, though abundantly capable of de- 
fense. The press is afraid of it; the politicians are 
afraid of it; and its case goes by default." So in 
this country, too, Capitalism, half dazed, says little 
in its own justification. 

Finally, there are the other nongrouped one hun- 
dred millions of us, — the people generally. Most 
of them have been in favor of the so-called Labor 
Movement until just now, as humanitarian. 

In fact, however, that movement, which is my 
subject here, is far from humanitarian. It is based 
on the lying premise of capitalistic oppression and 
class struggle; it appeals to the worthless motives 
of selfishness and sloth; it formulates the dishonest 
purposes of monopoly and coercion; it uses the law- 
less means of combination in restraint of trade, and 
violation of constitutional liberty and right. More- 
over it utterly fails to benefit its votaries — its rank 
and file. It is an increasing injury and menace to all 
of us, in cost of living, industry, and finance. It 
saps our national virility, poisons our politics, and 
prostitutes democracy to class service. We now at 

[4] 



GIST OF THIS BOOK 

last suddenly recognize its great centralized mili- 
tant organization as a menace to free institutions, 
whether considered as striking or voting machinery. 
Thus far, apparently, it has benefited no one in any 
large way except its leaders, especially Mr. Gom- 
pers and his confreres; though they have benefited 
enormously, and dream of greater benefit still — 
while their principle of entire irresponsibility to 
their country remains unchanged. 

We Americans have always been jealous of cen- 
tralized power, the logical remedy for which is 
decentralization. There is, too, a natural law of 
centrifugal force that tends to limit the value of 
centralized control; a tendency to disintegration and 
decay that makes overgrowth break down under its 
own weight and weakness. As the German proverb 
puts it, " Things are so ordained that the trees do not 
grow into the heavens." The increasing failure of 
colossal centralization to help labor is therefore per- 
fectly natural and to be expected. It is along the 
line of decentralization that the American voter is 
likely to urge the labor movement now and here- 
after. The " right to organize, to strike, and to 
bargain collectively " — all three of them forms of 
centralized power, — what these rights are or ought 
to be, and what Mr. Gompers would make of them, 
I shall try to show ; but I think that most Americans 
already agree with Governor Coolidge, that "there 
is no right to strike against the public safety, by any- 
body, anywhere, any time." 

I hope to show such Americans that it is time to 
meet not only the criminal menace of Labor with 
the law, but to face its political menace with the 
ballot, in coming and future campaigns, until the 
bogy of class politics is laid, for the time anyway: 

Also that we should divorce labor and politics, and 

[5] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

set free the impartial laws of supply and demand to 
determine social justice : 

Also, as practical men of sense and for the com- 
mon good, that we should cut loose the labor troubles 
of every employer from those of all the others, and 
should not assist Organized Labor's largely success- 
ful program of tying all industry and labor in one 
inextricable tangle, of centralized quarreling, bar- 
gaining, mediation, and arbitration, compulsory or 
otherwise; but should on the contrary set each em- 
ployer free, and each laborer, according to the guar- 
antees of the Constitution, to prosecute his lawful 
business, under maintenance of law and the public 
peace; that we should shun collectivism; should bar 
the general and sympathetic strike and the boycott; 
and finally that we should deny the right to strike 
against the public welfare, as Governor Coolidge 
says, by anybody, anywhere, any time. 

Nevertheless, I hold that we should accomplish 
these things by law only in so far as it proves to be 
impossible to accomplish them by voluntary change 
of heart and purpose of Organized Labor; for every 
good American recognizes the great and benevolent 
possibilities underlying the trades-union principle of 
brotherhood and cooperation. 

The education of Labor itself is a consummation 
devoutly to be wished and seriously undertaken by 
every lover of his country. Better ethics, better 
economics, and better industry would pay working- 
men far better than the present cult of war against 
the capitalist oppressor; there can be no doubt of 
that. 

Decentralization, Least Government, Education, 
— these are the preachments of this book. 



[6] 



CHAPTER II 

THE ISSUES AND THE POINT OF VIEW 

I have chosen "Class versus Country" as the sub- 
title for this book partly because it is short, allitera- 
tive, and "carries a punch," but more because it 
exactly states an important question that confronts 
this country now and in future. 

President Gompers, who seems to constitute Labor 
— as President Wilson constituted the Democratic 
Party — is openly out to control Congress and the 
presidential election, and incidentally to plunder the 
nation for the benefit of labor* 

It is not the first time. In 191 6, just before the 
last presidential campaign, he took control of the 
President and Congress, passed the Adamson Law, 
and actually did plunder the people for the benefit 
of the railway workers. We all stood for it, too; 
partly because we were too busy with the Kaiser just 
then to bother with Gompers, and partly because 
the latter caught us off guard with his coup d'etat. 

Nevertheless a shock of surprise and a wave of 
wrath swept over the country, to be followed by 
others, till the Seattle strike, the Steel, Boston Police, 
Longshore, Coal, and a hundred other strikes, with 
the Plumb (or plunder) Plan, backed up by talk of a 
general railway strike, one after the other brought 
conviction to many million free Americans that, 
having done with the Kaiser, the next autocrat in line 
for the clippers is Mr. Gompers. Ole Hanson and 
Governor Coolidge started the revolt; Senator Cum- 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

mins, Congressman Blanton, and others, are follow- 
ing it up ; the President, as usual playing both ends 
against the middle, slips behind the camouflage of his 
Industrial Conferences; while Gompers, driven to 
bay, foams at the mouth, and threatens this poor 
little nation and its Congressmen with the wrath of 
Organized Labor. 

Well, it is an excellent thing to wash our family 
linen clean and hang it out to dry. Clean washing 
is mainly a matter of plenty of hot water, strong 
soap, vigorous handling, good eyesight, and thorough 
exposure to the light. The American people is ready 
to turn Organized Labor inside out, look hard at it, 
and do the needful scrubbing uncompromisingly. 
Something not so very different from the Bolshevist 
pitch has been sticking to our shirt. 

When I was a boy in Vermont the old farmers used 
to say, " Work hard and save your money, and by 
and by a hired man will do the work for you." But 
times have changed. I am living again in a New 
England university town — Cambridge — and find 
to my surprise an almost Bolshevist cult among my 
perfectly honest and Christian neighbors. None of 
them ever created an industry, risked a dollar in 
active production, or found a job of work for even a 
few laboring men; yet they have very decided though 
not very clear views as to how Rockefeller and other 
greedy capitalists who do all these things ought to 
democratize industry; ought to save and risk all the 
capital, pay all or nearly all the profit to their em- 
ployees, and moreover ought to take their orders 
whenever they choose to give them. 

These same neighbors, many of them, do not seem 
to democratize their own domestic industry. They 
keep servants and incline to say to them, each to 
his man or her maid, " If you take my wages, you 

[8] 



\ 

ISSUES AND POINT OF VIEW 

must also take my orders " — and they are quite 
right. But they rather remind me of certain Phari- 
sees denounced in the Gospel of St. Matthew, who 
" say, and do not. For they bind great burdens, 
and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's 
shoulders; but they themselves will not move them 
with one of their fingers." Perhaps in the aureoled 
enthusiasm of " the new order " (whatever that may 
mean) they will label me as reactionary, undemo- 
cratic. But let me deprecate your doing the same, 
gentlemen of the press; for I am seriously asking 
you to look at facts and human nature as they are, 
not putting too great a strain on either. 

To begin and end with, I believe in good hard 
honest work, in manly pride in doing one's level best 
up to the point of healthy fatigue ; not only for the 
pay envelope — which will always be the fullest — 
but for the health and happiness of the worker, and 
the stimulus that his energy gives to the whole com- 
munity. Wise men of all ages from Solomon down, 
and the common sense of the common people every- 
where and always, will agree to this creed, though 
most men do not live entirely up to it. It is a truism, 
hardly needing iteration. 

Of course, I despise and denounce the lazy, use- 
less, contemptible song sung by Mr. Gompers (see 
A. F. L. Report 1920, inside cover), 

" Whether you work by the piece or work by the day, 
Decreasing the hours increases the pay," 

and his dishonest gospel always to demand " more, 
more, more" for less, less, less labor. I despise the 
mule's trick of balking — of doing the least possible 
work, under threat to do nothing at all if asked to 
do more. No more demoralizing poison could be 
instilled into the mind of man than the above, which 

[9] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

in the short space of forty years has transformed our 
virile, cheerful American craftsmen by hundreds of 
thousands into flabby, grouchy shirkers, always quar- 
reling with their own bread and butter, and getting 
less of it. 

To me the finer, more human, more American 
gospel is that of the biggest day's work for the 
biggest day's pay within my powers. If some other 
fellow can do a bigger day's work than I can, then 
let him also get so much bigger pay. If he can out- 
strip me, I would not be so small as to hold him back. 
If, moreover, he can pay for and coordinate the 
work of a thousand men like or better than himself, 
and get far more than a thousandfold the result, let 
him go ahead, and God bless him. Great be his re- 
ward for doing with them all what they cannot do 
by themselves. He cannot lead the crowd without 
drawing them after him, at least part way. 

Let me reassert my point of view, that of a prag- 
matist, as I said before; a man who believes in things 
that work and endure, who accepts broad and uni- 
versal social and economic phenomena that persist 
through all human history as ipso facto based upon 
natural law and human need, satisfying both. For 
when they do not do so, they do not last! I would 
apply the same test to the phenomena of economics 
and politics as to hydraulics or mechanics. If things 
spring up and endure, they must accord with the law 
of life. If they fail, it is because that law is too 
strong for them; they are against nature. One of 
these things that must conform to law in order to 
endure is Capital. 

There is nothing in history more certain than this, 
that where life and property are most secure, where 
those who sow can also reap and keep, there general 
prosperity is greatest, poverty is least, and standards 

[10] 




ISSUES AND POINT OF VIEW 



of living are highest. There those who work harder, 
save faster, risk more, rightly gain and keep more; 
while those who not only work and save hardest, 
but who also create work for others besides them- 
selves, rightly gain most of all. Service rendered, in 
the way of work done, directly or indirectly, is the 
natural measure of reward, and has been throughout 
all history, in accord with natural law. 

So long, then, as we Americans conform to natural 
law as established by history, just so long those who 
do most in this world will fare the best. If our coun- 
try is prosperous and the average man is well off, 
the exceptional man will be better off. There never 
has been great general prosperity without large 
private fortunes, from the dawn of history down to 
date. They appear and disappear with the excep- 
tional men who create them, — for this world's 
goods in themselves are perishable, — but while they 
last the great modern industrial fortunes, unlike the 
hoarded gold and gems of oriental despots, are far 
more useful to the laborers than to their owners, 
paying to the former far more year by year in wages 
than to the latter in dividends. The pestilence-and- 
f amine-free security of our humblest toilers in Amer- 
ica compared, say, with the precariousness of savage 
life in Darkest Africa, or even in Bolshevist Russia, 
is built upon the firm foundation of our railways, 
factories, and banks. 

Another human phenomenon, even more constant 
under peaceful conditions than creation and accumu- 
lation of capital, is propagation of the race and 
abundance of labor. The poor ye have always with 
you, saith Holy Writ. Statesmen and economists 
need seldom worry about race suicide: there will 
always be plenty of labor, in times of peace at least. 
What they ought to worry about, as patriots, work- 

[ii] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

ing for the common good, is abundance of capital. 
They should stand for that economical and political 
system which has actually best created and conserved 
capital, and endured the test of time and place. 
Granted abundance of capital, there is always abun- 
dance of, and for, labor. Without abundance of 
capital, there is seldom abundance of anything 
human, except want. 

A great change seems to me long overdue in 
American public opinion, and is perhaps under way 
already. Of late years millions of us have refused 
to accept the phenomenon — universal in all times 
and countries — of wealth for the few, livelihood for 
the many, and extreme poverty for again a few, as 
what we call " Social Justice." It is true that before 
the day of the modern commercial or industrial 
fortune — the just reward of service rendered — 
great private wealth was often the odious result of 
political or military spoliation, taken from the many 
by taxation or force and pocketed by the few; and 
that even in America we bear against the earned 
fortune of the Rockefellers a traditional grudge that 
relates back to the stolen fortunes of the Caesars. 
Although nowhere should the enormous usefulness 
of capitalism be so well understood as in this for- 
tunate land, many thousands of good Americans have 
not outgrown the hatred and envy of wealth as 
"privilege," inherited from centuries of its associa- 
tion with autocracy and robbery. The " moral basis 
of capitalism," its beneficence, its democracy, its 
social justice, has not yet been established in our 
public opinion. Yet it is time we realized that capi- 
talism is an invaluable by-product of political and 
economic liberty that should be at home and wel- 
come in America. Common sense will admit that 
democracy should not insist on uniform poverty, and 

[12] 



ISSUES AND POINT OF VIEW 

sense of justice will confirm Theodore Roosevelt's 
expression of the square deal for every man, namely : 
" Equality of opportunity? — Yes! Equality of re- 
ward? — No; an iridescent dream! " 

We have had enough of demagogy. In Abraham 
Lincoln's caustic words : You can fool all of the 
people some of the time, and some of the people all 
of the time; but you can't fool all of the people all of 
the time. Most of us now ask to hear plain truth. 

If you gentlemen can see and will say that there 
is nothing necessarily fundamental or spontaneous 
in "Labor Unrest"; that it has been deliberately 
worked up for years by demagogues for the sake of 
the power and cash in it; that "organization" has 
cost "Labor" say four hundred million dollars in 
dues, plus the cost of seventy thousand strikes, say 
eight hundred millions of lost wages in forty years; 
that nevertheless union wages lag behind both non- 
union wages and cost of living in respective increase, 
and are bound to lag more and more behind as union 
labor gives less and less production under union 
rules — you will be doing us all, laborers included, 
a service. 

Laborers are not fools, and probably would laugh 
at you if you ask them to point out just how they 
are " oppressed," or made " wage slaves." They 
know well enough that the more employers (op- 
pressors) the merrier; that "Capital" no matter 
how greedy, has never managed to grind American 
labor down below the level of the best paid and best 
fed wage workers on the face of this earth, and ap- 
parently has never tried to do so. It would make 
them and the rest of us, and perhaps some of your- 
selves, gentlemen, more content and optimistic of the 
future of our country to accept unreservedly our 
wonderfully fruitful modern American capitalism as 

[13] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

(with rare exception) the legitimate offspring of 
liberty and law; morally right, socially just, econom- 
ically and politically invaluable — especially to that 
vast multitude of good honest citizens who are 
absolutely dependent for work upon the captains 
who have the brains to create and the following to 
finance it. 

Fortunately for America the Reds in Russia, and 
in Europe generally, are trying out before our eyes 
the experiment of robbing and killing off those who 
work and save, those who employ men who can't 
employ themselves. They are repeating on a scale 
more colossal than ever before attempted the tyranny 
and waste of the state as sole employer. The foreign 
cables a few days ago reported that the Soviet Gov- 
ernment in Russia has just announced a loss in oper- 
ating the industries taken over by the state of so 
many billion roubles for the past year as to make 
the staggering losses of the Wilson Administration 
in operating the railways and wires, and commencing 
the airplane, shipping, nitrate, and other produc- 
tion, look like " thirty cents," as the phrase goes. 
Long before we are likely to be called to the polls to 
substitute state ownership for the individual enter- 
prise reserved to us by the Constitution, we shall be 
pretty sure of a magnificent object lesson in noting 
just how far Lenine and Trotzky succeed in correct- 
ing the mistakes of the Almighty, who chose to make 
men differ in achievement and in reward. 

When that moment arrives, if ever, I am optimist 
enough to back the common sense of the average 
voter to heed the proverb, " Let well enough alone." 



[14] 



ISSUES AND POINT OF VIEW 



xsmz 

\moeo 



MEMBERSHIP 
AMERICANFEDERATIONofIABOR 

1881^01919 



1500 COO 
J.1SW00 

vsoooo 
usomo 

X300 0O0 

1250.000 

1*4000 

tuoooo 

}. IOO coo 
1050000 

3.000.000! 

1350009 



z.ewooo 
atoooo 
2750.000 



2SSCC-X 
2JSCOCOO 
iSSOOOt 



m 



125O.0O0 
\za»ooo 

1(0 coo 
i.lOOOOO 
70SOOOO 

2.000.0001 

1950 000 
1900000 



1I750JXK) 

1KOO0O 
1650000 



! I I I 

J III 

iii:: 
i : : i 



iii ii ii i 

; | : ; ; ; ; 

iii ii ii 

LI SIMS 

ii ii ii 

ii ii :: i 



i i i i i 
r i ii i 

iiiii 



1.000.000 

950 000 
900 000 

\asoooo 
isooooo 
1 7 50.0 CO 
boo MO 
\ssoooa 
sootoo 

S 50 000 

00.000 
59000 

MOM 
iX.000 
JOOOOO 

250.000 



I I I I I I Til I 



► <T> <T> Ol OS O O 

icjootoaoiO 



OlOO^OCiCOClwl^JlOl^CiOOIO^i 



[15] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 




^xsgSs^ 



[16] 



CHAPTER III 

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR. GROWTH 
AND INCOME 

The most obvious characteristics of Organized 
Labor just now are size, wealth, and aggressive- 
ness; all of these emphasized by the partnership — 
perhaps a bit shaky — between the two presidents, 
Messrs. Wilson and Gompers. For a while it 
seemed as if the firm style should read the other 
way, — Presidents Gompers and Wilson. 

The foregoing diagrams, borrowed from the 
A. F. L. Annual Report for 19 19, tell the story 
at once of the great size, rapid growth, and com- 
pletely centralized control of Mr. Gompers' life 
work, the American Federation of Labor. No 
financial statement is given to show the total income 
and expenditures of the 33,852 unions existing last 
year — now said to number over thirty- four thou- 
sand; but an estimate may be hazarded as follows: 

Inquiry from various union men of different trades 
around Boston, typical of building construction, fac- 
tory work, railroad and public service, operation 
and construction, indicates that union dues average 
at least a dollar a month per capita. If so, the 
3,260,068 paying members of the A. F. L. must 
have paid in for the year 19 19 around thirty-nine 
million dollars. The Report says they got back in 
union benefits (sickness and death mainly) $6,705,- 
000 (strike benefits appear to be paid by special 
assessment, and not to come out of dues). This 

[17] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

would indicate a net outlay for " organization " for 
that year of over thirty-two million dollars, paid by 
the A. F. L. alone. A colossal outlay indeed! 

Besides this, the four Railway Brotherhoods, 
which number some four hundred and fifty thousand 
members, probably pay in somewhere between five 
and ten million dollars more. It would not be ex- 
cessive to guess that during the last fifty years at 
least four hundred and fifty million dollars have 
been paid in by these two groups of working men 
(not to mention the Knights of Labor, I. W. W., 
etc.) for dues alone. 

From 1880 to 1905 the Commissioner of Labor, 
the late Carroll D. Wright, kept and tabulated in 
a most valuable way the statistics of strikes and 
lockouts in the United States, aggregating over 
thirty-eight thousand strikes and lockouts, affecting 
two hundred thousand establishments. Since 1905 
the Department of Labor has kept on with these 
statistics, after a fashion, but not in uniform shape 
for totalizing (perhaps the Secretary of Labor, a 
trades-unionist, thinks it not wise to publish too 
much information about such things). As well as 
the writer can put together such figures as there are 
since 1905, there have been some seventy-five thou- 
sand strikes and lockouts since 1880, of which more 
than ninety per cent (say seventy thousand) were 
directly due to Organized Labor and were handled by 
it. Now the United States census estimates, as given 
by the New York World Almanac, fixed the industrial 
male population of the United States in 19 17 at about 
forty-eight million men registered for the first selec- 
tive draft. Let us concede Mr. Gompers' claim 
(Report, p. 474) that there are four million labor- 
ers organized, or one twelfth of our man power, 
yet that twelfth, according to the records of the 

[18] 



A. F. L. GROWTH AND INCOME 

Department of Commerce and Labor, caused nine 
tenths of over seventy-five thousand strikes recorded, 
the unorganized eleven twelfths of the workers caus- 
ing but one tenth of the same. Reduced to ratios, 
Organized Labor is just ninety-nine times as quar- 
relsome as unorganized labor. In other words, 
" organization " keeps union labor in a peck of care- 
fully created trouble, at enormous expense both for 
annual dues and for wages lost in strikes; while, as 
I shall hereafter show, for some reason — probably 
inefficiency — its net earning power is steadily drop- 
ping back, in comparison with that of free unorgan- 
ized labor. 

This unfortunate yet entirely deserved result to 
union labor is directly due to militarism, to con- 
tinuous and intentional warfare growing out of 
the gospel of class antagonism preached by Mr. 
Gompers and his associates; for the purely selfish 
purpose, established by their own records, of main- 
taining centralized control of labor in order to hold 
up the community. 

Before leaving the Carroll Wright Report let us 
look at it from one more angle, — that of union 
activity in securing better conditions as to child 
labor, female labor, sanitation, safeguarding of 
hazardous occupations, workmen's compensation for 
injury, etc., all of which are loudly advertised by 
Mr. Gompers. 

All that I can fairly admit is, that Mr. Gompers 
and his associates have been mildly sympathetic 
with the efforts of philanthropists and social work- 
ers as to these things, which hardly at all affect 
the growth and power of their great strike ma- 
chinery. The latter has never been militantly ag- 
gressive, nor has conspicuously taken the initiative, 
on behalf of either children or women. Perhaps of 

[19] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

late years (since the death of Mr. Carroll Wright 
the Department of Labor records have been badly 
kept, as noted above, and do not show) the unions 
may have done some real fighting for these things; 
but out of nearly thirty-seven thousand strikes tabu- 
lated by the Wright Report prior to 1905, not a 
single one was called on behalf of women, children, 
sanitation, safeguards, or welfare questions, — all 
of which were left to the reformers to busy them- 
selves with. 

Of late (see the labor provisions of the Peace 
Treaty) Mr. Gompers stands for stopping child 
labor under sixteen years of age, for equal wages 
for men and women, and for stopping piece or con- 
tract work done at home in the family. All of these 
are excellent things; but in assessing Mr. Gompers' 
motive in sponsoring them I cannot forget that few 
if any children under sixteen go to work unless 
obliged to do so by their parents, — who as well as 
the employers are actuated by greed in working 
children, — and that most parents in the unionized 
trades must be union members. Nor can I forget 
that cheap child labor tends also to cheapen union 
wage-scales, and that the same thing is true of 
women's labor and of work done at home. All 
three thus tend to compete with and lower union 
wages, though all three are quite within the power 
of workers themselves to prevent without legisla- 
tion to curb the so-called greed of employers. It 
would not be consistent with Mr. Gompers' record 
to neglect any opportunity either to block wage 
competition, or to saddle employers with entire 
blame for greed and inhumanity to children, even 
if largely perpetrated by their own parents. Hence, 
perhaps, his recent sponsorship. 

Before dismissing the matter of growth we may 
[20] 



A. F. L. GROWTH AND INCOME 

note that the aforesaid A. F. L. diagram shows two 
periods of conspicuous activity and increase, — the 
first from 1900 to 1904, and the second from 1917 
to date. Both these periods were of intensive in- 
dustrial activity, with demand for labor far out- 
running supply. The reactions in business of 1904 
and 1908 made it impossible for Mr. Gompers to 
call successful strikes just then, and the worker for 
a year or two afterwards felt it was wiser to keep 
away from strike machines. "Nothing succeeds 
like success." When men are scarce and employers 
are bidding up wages, and hasten to " come across " 
with a raise every time a business agent crooks his 
finger, it is easy for the unions to say " You see, we 
can do it" — and the workman is apt to believe 
them. It is different when there are four men for 
every three jobs, as happens occasionally. 

Particularly have the unions grown by leaps and 
bounds since the passage of the Adamson Law in 
19 1 6, since Labor felt able to say: "Now, boys, 
we own the United States ; just watch Congress and 
President Wilson ! Sam Gompers is the real Presi- 
dent of this country." 

Well, as the old German adage had it, "Things 
are so ordained that the trees do not grow into the 
heavens" — sometimes they die at the top, some- 
times at the root; sometimes lightning, sometimes 
the axe, relegates them to the brush pile. It is 
much the same with Presidents. 



[21] 



CHAPTER IV 

THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR 
CONSTITUTION AND APPEAL 

There can be no more reliable evidence of the 
predatory theories, principles, purposes, and meth- 
ods of American Organized Labor — as guided by 
Mr. Gompers — than the Annual Reports of the 
Conventions of his great creation, the American 
Federation of Labor. No accusation of capitalistic 
prejudice or unfairness can obscure conclusions 
based upon the votes and utterances officially re- 
corded and put into public circulation by himself 
and those he trusts. 

The Preamble to the Constitution of the Ameri- 
can Federation of Labor sets forth its reason for 
existence in the following words : 

" Whereas, a struggle is going on in all the nations of the 
civilized world between the oppressors and the oppressed of 
all the countries, a struggle between the capitalist and the 
laborer, which grows in intensity from year to year, and will 
work disastrous results to the toiling millions if they are 
not combined for mutual protection and benefit. 

" It therefore behooves the representatives of the Trade 
and Labor Unions of America, in convention assembled, to 
adopt such measures and disseminate such principles among 
the mechanics and laborers of our country as will perma- 
nently unite them to secure the recognition of rights to 
which they are justly entitied. 

" We, therefore, declare ourselves in favor of the forma- 
tion of a thorough Federation, embracing every Trade and 

[22] 



A. F. L. CONSTITUTION AND APPEAL 

Labor Organization in America, organized under the Trade 
Union system." 

The " Objects" of the Federation are set forth 
in Article II of the Constitution, — the formation of 
local unions, their integration into central, state or 
territorial, national and international organizations 
based upon autonomy of each trade, departments 
covering industries, and American federation of 
them all; also the securing of legislation in the in- 
terest of the working people, influencing public 
opinion by peaceful and legal methods in favor of 
organized labor, and aiding the labor press. 

Perhaps Mr. Gompers and his associates who 
framed the foregoing Preamble and have maintained 
it for forty years as the foundation of their great 
structure believe its gospel of class antagonism and 
are sincere, or perhaps they are merely rank dema- 
gogues. The reader can judge for himself from 
their 1 long record in action. But the gospel itself is 
a lie; suspiciously like the original lie invented by 
Karl Marx, the German apostle of Socialism — 
though Mr. Gompers repudiates that cult. Whether 
Mr. Gompers believes the lie or not, there can be 
no possible doubt as to why he put it where it 
stands. His purpose was and is to arouse class 
hatred, and stir Labor to unite in fighting Capital. 
In reality, there is practically no "oppression" of 
Labor by Capital, and little "struggle" except that 
which professional agitators stir up in the course of 
their business. 

/, for instance, am a capitalist, small or great. 
You are a laborer. You are looking for a job — 
some one to hire you to do his work, because you 
have not the brains, energy, and thrift to provide 
work for yourself. There are a great many more 
like you, and a very few more like me. The many 

[23] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

are always coming to the few for jobs; shopping 
around among them for the best they can find. I 
come along, having earned and saved a little money, 
and with others who have also saved something put 
up the cash to start a new factory. I then offer 
my new jobs to you and your friends who are look- 
ing for them, competing with prior employers for 
your services. If my offer is better than theirs, you 
take mine; if not, you take the best, whoever of- 
fers it. 

In this perfectly peaceful transaction where is 
the "oppressor" or the "oppressed" of the Gom- 
pers Preamble? Am / your oppressor " in offering 
you the choice of one more job than before? Are 
you "oppressed" by having a larger choice and 
keener competition for your services? Is it not 
" the more the merrier" with you when looking for 
a job? Are not a hundred such "oppressors" at 
least a thousand times better for you than none at 
all? Are you particularly conscious of "industrial 
slavery" when you say to me contemptuously, " No, 
I would not look at your job; I can do far better 
just around the corner." 

To use plain language and tell the exact truth, 
what perfectly rotten demagogy it is to describe an 
entirely voluntary bargain — presumably beneficial 
to both sides or it would not be closed — as a 
"struggle between the capitalist and the laborer" 
which "will work disastrous results to the toiling 
millions"! Perhaps Mr. Gompers regards it as 
" disastrous " to the toiling millions to have any oc- 
casion at all to work for what used to be called an 
honest living, and feels that Capital owes Labor the 
earth, " free gratis, and for nothing." 

Whatever Mr. Gompers' real opinion may be on 
this question of disaster, we can but conclude that 

[24] 



A. F. L. CONSTITUTION AND APPEAL 

such inflammatory talk, such stirrings up of class 
consciousness and hatred as the above, has in prac- 
tice been valuable to Mr. Gompers in his business; 
at least it is found all the way through the Report 
so often quoted herein. Note the following lan- 
guage: On page 71: "the arbitrary or autocratic 
whim of the employer ... It is inconceivable 
that the workers as free citizens should remain 
under autocratically made law, within industry and 
commerce." Page 72: "There are no means 
whereby the workers can maintain fair wages ex- 
cept through trade-union effort." Page 83 : " the 
labor movement . . . undertakes to protect the 
wealth producers against the exorbitant greed of 
special interests; against profiteering, against ex- 
ploitation, against the detestable methods of irre- 
sponsible greed, against the inhumanity and crime 
of heartless corporations and employers." Again: 
" Unionism is the only hope of the workers." Page 
407 : " the things that the American Chamber of 
Commerce, every labor hating corporation in our 
country, and every institution that refuses to recog- 
nize the right of working men or women to organize 
have been fighting day and night." 

But enough of such quotations ; the Report is full 
of them and will speak for itself. The A. F. L. 
is forty years old, but it learns no charity or wis- 
dom. Its appeal today is as it has always been, — 
to the meanest of human motives — envy, hatred, 
and malice, of class against class, here in free Amer- 
ica, where our fathers thought to do away with 
class; or rather to throw every class open to every 
man according to his ability to attain. 

I have been an employer most of my life, and 
never hated my labor; and my men never hated me, 
but followed me from one concern to another. I 

[25] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

never knew an employer that did hate his labor; 
and two thousand employers, in answering a ques- 
tionnaire I once put out as chairman of a committee 
of the National Association of Manufacturers, tes- 
tified to cordial relations with the large majority of 
their men. Long association breeds friendship ; few 
men grow to hate each other — as you yourselves 
are aware, gentlemen of the press. Judge for your- 
selves whether the Chamber of Commerce, for in- 
stance, deserves the line of denunciation put out 
above; or is it mere poison injected by labor dema- 
gogues to make bad blood between workman and 
employer as man and man? 

The game is as simple as A, B, C. Every worker 
who can be convinced that "Unionism is the only 
hope of the workers" will join the union and pay 
union dues. 



[26] 



CHAPTER V 

THE RIGHT TO ORGANIZE, TO STRIKE, ETC. 
THE GARY CASE 

Where there are no unions and each workman 
makes his own bargain with his employer (as once 
was universally the case), work and wages are de- 
termined by the law of supply and demand acting 
on the labor market; by the competition or absence 
of competition of workmen for the same job or of 
employer for the same workmen. When business 
is poor and trade dull and jobs are scarce, the men 
compete for them with each other, ask less and less 
pay, and wages fall. When trade is good and shops 
run full, men are scarce and employers compete for 
them, offering more and more, and wages risu 

Trade-unionism is an attempt to destroy this 
free competition among wage workers, with its re- 
sulting rise and fall of work and wages, and sub- 
stitute collective action to monopolize work and 
arbitrarily determine conditions by coercion of the 
strike, or the fear of it, rather than by market con- 
ditions affecting labor or trade. Combination for 
effecting monopoly and coercion is the essential pur- 
pose of Organized Labor, in spite of the fact that 
every form of conspiracy to destroy competition, 
restrict producti< n, and fix prices has been held a 
crime at common law for centuries. 

Before considering the law, however, let us con- 
sider the moralities. Let us take a recent conspicu- 

[27] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

ous, concrete case — say the late Steel Corporation 
strike at Gary, Indiana. The " right to organize," 
the " right to strike," and the " right to collective 
bargaining" were asserted there in the largest way, 
under conditions absolutely free from collateral 
complications. Here is the story of that famous 
town : 

Twenty years ago the eastbound trains from Chi- 
cago used to traverse the site of that present busy 
manufacturing community, just over the Indiana 
state line. It was for fifteen or twenty miles in 
every direction a waste of slightly rolling ridges of 
sand, — left probably by the gradual recession of 
the south end of Lake Michigan and parallel to its 
shore line, — divided from each other ofttimes by 
lagoons of stagnant water, and covered with sparse 
growth of rushes, coarse grasses, scrub oaks and 
pines. The tract was perfectly useless for farming 
or suburban improvement and had no river or har- 
bor waters to permit development as a port. There 
was hardly a house or an inhabitant throughout the 
whole region. Early in this century the great Steel 
Corporation recognized the vicinity of Chicago as 
a strategic center for the manufacture and distribu- 
tion of steel; convenient for the assembling of iron 
ore by lake, coal and coke by lake or rail; close to 
a great city for supply of labor; and a great rail- 
road and lake transportation center for quick and 
economical distribution of finished product the year 
round. The corporation bought largely of these 
waste lands, and in two years like magic arose the 
great installation and dependent community that 
exists today. 

There was not a human being on the spot 
until construction commenced. Every workingman 
in Gary came there 'voluntarily from somewhere, 

[28] 






RIGHT TO ORGANIZE, ETC. 

bringing his family, in order to accept work and 
wages offered by the Steel Corporation; which were 
so entirely satisfactory to him that he pulled up 
stakes elsewhere and paid railroad fare in order to 
get there. There was no union at Gary — no men 
to unionize — and it has never been "organized." 
Throughout the entire life of the Gary project the 
Steel Corporation has been a non-union, open shop 
concern, the most conspicuous antagonist of the 
closed shop in America. The plant and the town 
were named for Judge Gary, head of the Steel 
Corporation, of late denounced more perhaps than 
any man in America by Organized Labor as an auto- 
crat. Every man who voluntarily went to Gary 
ought to have known, and probably did know, that 
he was going to work in a non-union plant under his 
own individual bargain, and not under a collective 
bargain made for him by any union leader. 

In order to provide the millions required to build 
the great plant, the stockholders of the Steel Corpo- 
ration went without dividends for many years. The 
company held back its earnings, instead of giving 
them to its owners to spend, and put them into this 
and other enlargements of its producing properties, 
enabling it to employ many thousands more work- 
ingmen than before. As far as published records 
show, not a single workingman of all who came to 
Gary put one dollar of his own savings into the 
plant that was to give him his job. Plant and job 
were created, paid for, and thrown open to such 
workingmen as might choose to avail themselves of 
them, with the money and at the risk of perfect 
strangers, who were in no way legally or morally 
responsible for the workmen's existence or welfare; 
who were in no way obligated to offer them work 
and wages — to say nothing of democratic condi- 

[29] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

tions — either on autocratic conditions or on any 
conditions at all. 

Nevertheless, because there was promise of profit 
in making steel at Gary — relying, as investors al- 
ways do, upon current trade conditions, cost of raw 
material, transportation and going wages in the Chi- 
cago market, and upon current selling prices for 
product, subject to such probable changes as could 
be forecasted by expert advisers — the Steel Corpo- 
ration went ahead, built the Gary plant, and has run 
it successfully ever since. 

Everybody then applauded the venture as per- 
fectly legitimate, useful, bringing population and 
prosperity to an empty wilderness. The press and 
the politicians joined in welcoming its promoters. 
Many thousand workmen and their families came 
to Gary and remained. The town, largely built by 
the Corporation, was well planned and constructed; 
in many respects remarkable. The school system 
developed there, for instance, has in these few years 
been copied all over the land. The plant made a 
lot of steel; the men and the Corporation made a lot 
of money. Everything and everybody — except a 
politician now and then — went humming along, 
peaceful, prosperous, and contented. 

There was one big fly in the ointment — and that 
in Mr. Gompers' pot. " Gary," like "Homestead" 
and other great plants of the Steel Corporation, was 
not "organized." Judge Gary was so "damned 
autocratic" that his workmen by the tens of thou- 
sands were actually free to make their own indi- 
vidual bargains for work and wages without paying 
dues to "representatives of their own choosing" to 
bargain collectively for them. 

In fact, they were not choosing any representa- 
tives at all; were dealing direct with their employer, 

[30] 



RIGHT TO ORGANIZE, ETC. 

and, worst of all, were making more steel and more 
money than union law allowed. More damnable 
yet, the Steel Corporation was doing all kinds of 
welfare work for its employees and was helping 
them to save their money, and invest it in the stock 
of the Company, or to build and own their own 
houses — all of which are accursed contrivances of 
the devil to make the workingman content with his 
job, independent of union benefits, and interested 
in the prosperity of the business that supports him. 
The great size of the bodies of workmen employed 
by the corporation; its conspicuous avoidance of 
Mr. Gompers; the big wages earned by its men (see 
Annual Report United States Steel Corporation, 
1 919, showing average wage paid per man for 19 14, 
$677; 1915, $925; 1916, $1042; 1917, $1296; 
191 8, $1605; 19 19, $1902), all without collective 
bargaining; the rate at which they were buying the 
company's stock — namely one hundred and sixty- 
seven thousand shares this year (1920), which in 
ten years will well make the employees own half 
of the whole enormous concern ! — all of this public 
and successful defiance of trades-unionism was the 
worst possible advertisement for its ruling spirit. 

Last, but emphatically not least, there was the 
exasperating thought that to " organize " the Steel 
Corporations two hundred and sixty-eight thousand 
men — including Gary and all the other plants — 
would pay the organizers (assuming the Chicago 
figure of 1903 of two dollars per man unionized) 
over half a million dollars, and bring in to the union 
treasuries monthly dues of say one dollar apiece, or 
over three million dollars per annum! A lot of 
well-salaried officials might draw pay for running 
the twenty-six big unions involved! 

Under these compelling considerations, whether 

[31] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

as human being or labor leader, who can condemn 
Mr. Gompers for feeling that he must unionize the 
Steel Corporation or "bust"; or for choosing as 
the psychological moment for the adventure the year 
1 919, when he might reasonably have thought 
he had the Administration at Washington in his 
breeches pocket, with general elections coming in 
1920. 

Also, he had kept organizers at work in the Steel 
Corporation plants for some time, and had suc- 
ceeded in unionizing perhaps a quarter of the em- 
ployees, — mostly non-English speaking aliens, — so 
the newspapers said at the time. Perhaps he had 
some doubt about cutting loose from President Wil- 
son, and about his entire preparedness to strike; 
but he was driven to it by fear that the unions, 
under younger leaders, might strike and get away 
from him his personal control. Anyway, he sanc- 
tioned calling a general strike in the steel industry, 
aimed particularly at the Steel Corporation. 

Perhaps, though a wonderfully astute agitator, 
his head was rather turned, as was President Wil- 
son's, by the dizzy success of his foreign reception 
in 191 8 — after four years of unprecedented power 
here. At any rate, when he got back, late in 19 18, 
he notified the Pan-American Labor Conference at 
Laredo, Texas, that Labor never would give up 
the high wages and short hours that prevailed dur- 
ing the war, no matter what happened to business. 
The Federation and the Railway Brotherhoods ac- 
cepted and followed this lead during 19 19 in an 
incipient railway strike, the longshore strike, the 
" Plumb Plan," the steel strike, Boston police strike, 
coal strike, etc. ; while the I. W. W. worked up the 
Seattle strike in February of that year, on its own 
hook. 

[32] 






RIGHT TO ORGANIZE, ETC. 

Coming back to Gary, we know what happened. 
The President, a better politician than Gompers, 
had had time to take notice of symptoms of popu- 
lar drift away from "Labor"; to sense growing 
wrath at the Adamson Law and rebellion against 
heavier burdens on the taxpayers, also against strikes 
aimed at public service; to estimate as a political 
factor the instant, widely voiced approval of Calvin 
Coolidge and Ole Hanson — reflected in Congress 
and the press. He refused to go along with the 
Brotherhoods and the Federation. He no longer 
wrote, as he once did, of Mr. Gompers — "I like 
to match my mind with a mind that can work in 
harness." When the steel strike came to a show- 
down (perhaps to kill two birds with one stone, an 
unpopular strike and a popular Presidential possi- 
bility), he directed the United States Army, under 
command of General Leonard Wood, to maintain 
law and order in the steel and coal regions. This 
simple constitutional order — the prevention of vio- 
lence and sabotage and the protection of all men, 
union and non-union, in the peaceful enjoyment of 
their freedom to work or not as they chose — Gen- 
eral Wood performed so quietly, so justly, and so 
well, as to command the admiration of the country, 
union labor included. Whereupon — as always hap- 
pens with simple maintenance of law and order, 
mere prevention of violence and sabotage, mere 
freedom of the individual working man to do his 
own bargaining and voluntarily accept the best job 
in sight — the great steel, coal, and railway strikes, 
one after the other, collapsed. There will perhaps 
be an aftermath to the settlement of the coal and 
railway strikes, since government commissions have 
intervened to settle wages ; probably an unavoidable 
aftermath, as to which I offer no criticism. There 

[33] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

should be none, however, to the steel strike settle- 
ment, in which government and Gompers took no 
hand; in which case hats must come off to Judge 
Gary. 

Such is the history of the Gary strike; now, then, 
for the rights of it. Mr. Gompers is strenuous as 
to rights. 

There can be no doubt that /, for instance, have 
perfect moral and legal " right" to save money and 
put it into a steel plant or any other plant for any 
useful, lawful purpose at Gary or anywhere else; 
and that having done so I have an equally unques- 
tioned "right" to offer work and wages under any 
lawful conditions to you individually, to ten thou- 
sand of you collectively, or to no one at all. On 
your part, individually or collectively, you have un- 
questioned "right" to accept or refuse work and 
wages as offered. 

You have likewise unquestioned " right to or- 
ganize," to join a trades-union, or not to join, as you 
choose. You are a free American, and you have un- 
questioned "right to strike," to quit work, individu- 
ally or collectively, at any time, providing you break 
no agreement in so doing. Mr. Gompers' loud de- 
mands for the "right to organize" and the "right 
to strike " are the merest camouflage, intended to 
fool the public, and entirely uncalled for; because 
no one, even Judge Gary, has ever denied them. 
The most smashing proof of that fact lies in the 
diagram printed in the 1919 Report of the A. F. L., 
showing 33,852 unions actually organized and cross- 
organized to an amazing centralization; and in the 
record of over seventy thousand strikes called by 
Organized Labor since 1880, contained in the Bulle- 
tins of the Department of Labor at Washington. 
One might as well deny the force and operation of 

[34] 



RIGHT TO ORGANIZE, ETC. 

gravity as to deny the existence and wholesale ex- 
ercise of these " rights. " 

Conversely, but consistently with them, I have no 
" right," and there exists under our free institutions 
no legal or constitutional power, to compel you to 
work for me, or to take my wages, individually or 
collectively, just as you have no " right," individual 
or collective, and there exists no legal or constitu- 
tional power, to compel me to offer work and wages 
to you or to any one, on any conditions whatever. 

In fact there cannot be such a thing as a right to 
bargain, individually or collectively! A bargain is 
a voluntary agreement between two or more parties, 
the essence of which is that the parties freely reach 
a common understanding. Neither party can pos- 
sibly have any "right" of any kind compelling or 
growing out of a bargain unless and until that bar- 
gain has actually been made; until voluntary agree- 
ment has actually been reached. Neither party has 
a "right" to demand, though common sense and 
courtesy usually concede, even a preliminary con- 
ference for the purpose of proposing a bargain. 
Either party may decline even to negotiate. 

That is precisely what happened to Mr. Gom- 
pers when he said to Judge Gary: "You have been 
dealing direct with your men for many years; now 
we have unionized them and you must deal with 
them only through us, their chosen representatives 
— or we will strike the entire steel industry." Judge 
Gary answered: "Whether you have unionized our 
men we doubt; but we have dealt direct with them 
for many years to our own and apparently their 
satisfaction; so we do not care to deal with them 
through union organizations at all; we have had 
trouble enough with unions long ago. We shall 
continue, as of late years, to offer work and wages 

[35] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

to workmen individually. They are entirely free 
to refuse or accept, just as they see fit. We hope 
and believe many will accept; but in any case we 
courteously decline to negotiate with workmen 
through trade-unions. Our experience warns us 
against so doing." 

Mr. Gompers then appealed to politics against 
Judge Gary as "autocratic." But — what is there 
of autocracy in offering jobs direct to men who are 
entirely free to refuse? 

It is only in recent years that Labor leaders have 
invented such catch phrases as " right to organize," 
"right to strike," "right of collective bargaining," 
" autocracy of capital," " aspirations of Labor," 
"democratization of industry," etc. — all brand 
new, whose effectiveness as slogans of demagogy, 
whose appeal to the average unthinking, liberty- 
loving American, must indeed be conceded, and can 
hardly be overestimated. These slogans have been 
sounded only since the action of the State and 
United States supreme courts in successive decisions 
has gradually built up growing barriers to the 
plain old-fashioned coercion practiced by organized 
labor, — barriers which more and more tend to shut 
out coercion altogether. Without coercion, as Mr. 
Gompers well knows, his kind of trade-unionism 
would soon die a natural death. Hence he and his 
associates have logically been driven by force of 
events — as well as by personal ambition — to reach 
out from the domain of labor to that of politics; 
for sanction of law, as well as official power, to 
carry out Labor's coercion of Capital. Originally, 
the unions did not bother with public opinion or 
slogans, but frankly relied on what Wall Street calls 
"nuisance value" to bring employers to terms. 

At Gary, for instance, there 'is an investment of 

[36] 



RIGHT TO ORGANIZE, ETC. 

fifty million dollars or more, — I do not know, — 
with many thousand men peacefully at work who 
had been glad to take and keep for many years the 
jobs offered by the Corporation. The organizers 
of the A. F. L. came along and said to the men: 
" You are fools to work for Judge Gary on his terms. 
Here you are all right together, where it has taken 
the company years to locate and train you. It 
would take it as many more years to break in a new 
force if you should quit. Meantime these great 
plants in which it has put millions would be idle, 
and it would lose enormously. It can't get along 
without you; and it can't afford to fight you. All 
you have to do is to join the union, and leave it to 
us experienced leaders, backed by all the iron and 
steel workingmen in America, to bring these auto- 
crats to their knees. You can strike and take a nice 
vacation for a few weeks; and we will see to it that 
you get pay for your full time just the same, beside 
shorter hours and longer pay checks when you go 
back to work. The Steel Corporation is rich and 
can stand it. Also, you can choose your own fore- 
men in future and make your own working rules, 
if you don't like those you have. Be men, and have 
something to say about your own jobs. Labor is 
king. Teach Judge Gary a lesson." 

Now, to organize and strike is entirely within the 
right of the workmen at Gary, and Homestead too, 
provided that they keep all contracts, individual or 
collective, under which they accepted work and 
wages. At both plants, most likely, they work 
largely by the day or hour, and are perfectly justi- 
fied in quitting without notice, one by one or all 
together, if they think it to their interest to do so. 
That is one of the chances a corporation takes in 
putting millions into a plant, that it may fail to get 

[37] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

labor; also, in employing by the day, that labor may 
quit any day. The laborer, too, takes a like chance, 
that the corporation may shut down work, or lay 
him individually oft any day. Both parties are 
gambling on the necessities, each of the other; and 
if both keep their agreements up to the time they 
end them, there is no moral or legal right or wrong 
involved. 

But coercion is different. Wrong is done, courts 
enjoin, soldiers entrain for Gary, and Mr. Gompers 
rages against "autocracy" and injunctions, and de- 
mands democratization of industry, when — as in- 
variably is the case — union leaders serve notice on 
all concerned as follows : 

"You are out on strike. The union will see to 
it that no man takes the jobs you men have struck 
on; the jobs belong to you, and no one else, espe- 
cially no non-union man, shall take them. Our picket 
line will see to that; and also that no non-union 
material goes in or out of this place. This business 
must come to an absolute standstill, no matter what 
loss to it or to non-union labor is involved, until 
such time as its boss walks up to the Captain's of- 
fice, settles, and reemploys you men; this time not 
on his conditions but on yours." 

Right there on the picket line is where law and 
order come to a show-down. Clearly, the pickets 
can stop the passage of men and material only in 
three ways: by persuasion, by abuse (the odious 
epithet "scab"), or by violence. Only the first is 
lawful; but all three are almost invariably used. 
Breach of peace and often loss of life result, and 
the courts, the police, and the military are neces- 
sarily called in. It is well understood from years 
of experience that unions seldom successfully co- 
erce when no picket lines are established, or when 

[38] 



RIGHT TO ORGANIZE, ETC. 

police or military keep the peace and protect all who 
come and go along the picket line. Therefore, local 
courts are often appealed to in advance to enjoin 
the pickets from violence and abuse; and judges 
frequently grant the injunctions asked for. Occa- 
sionally a judge has enjoined picketing altogether, 
as sure to provoke violence; but usually courts en- 
join only against violence and abuse, recognizing 
u picketing with peaceful persuasion" as lawful use 
of the streets and constitutional freedom of speech. 
Now, no one, even the trades-unionist, has the 
gall to assert that the courts, the police, or the mili- 
tary do any wrong, or anything more than their 
sworn duty, in keeping the peace, maintaining law 
and order, and the free use of the public streets to 
all comers; or that the "right" to organize and to 
strike includes the "right" to beat up a non-union 
man; or drop a monkey wrench into an "unfair" 
employer's fast-running and costly machinery. The 
union leaders always vehemently deny and disown 
all encouragement of and responsibility for violence 
and sabotage. But the bitter and constant attacks 
upon the courts by Organized Labor because of 
so-called "government by injunction"; its attempts 
at the polls to defeat or to elect legislators and 
judges, so as to warp the law or its interpretations 
(see A. F. L. Reports 191 8 and 19 19) ; its habit of 
hiring counsel to defend union men arrested for 
criminal violence (for instance, Mr. Gompers raised 
fifty thousand dollars to pay Clarence Darrows' re- 
tainer in defending the McNamaras, the notorious 
dynamiters of the Los Angeles Times) ; these ac- 
tions speak louder than words to attest the paying 
value, if not the absolute necessity of terrorism, in 
strikes. As Allan Pinkerton testified in a Pennsyl- 
vania court during the famous " Mollie McGuire " 

[39] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

murder trials, a generation ago, " Organized Labor 
is organized violence." 

There is no need to go back a generation or a 
day, as it happens, for confirmation of Pinkerton's 
words. As I write, May 20, comes the newspaper 
account of the killing — it looks like the murder — 
in a West Virginia coal mining town of several mem- 
bers of a private detective force employed to evict 
striking union miners from the company's houses. 
The district has been non-union, and there has been 
trouble before from attempts to unionize it. But 
why did that mining company feel obliged at great 
expense to bring in armed men to guard its prop- 
erty and remove from its premises men who refused 
to work in its mines ? Why was the Attorney Gen- 
eral called on to put the coal and steel regions last 
fall under the restraining presence of the United 
States Army and General Wood? Why was the 
Governor of Kansas and of Massachusetts obliged 
to call out state troops, and the Governor of Penn- 
sylvania to summon constabulary this year and last, 
during coal and railway strikes — to name but the 
more conspicuous disturbances of recent months? 

The answer is always the same: for fear of riot 
resulting from strikes. The strikes themselves re- 
sult from the organization of labor, which results 
from Messrs. Gompers et al. Q. E. D. There can 
be nothing accidental about so constant a phenome- 
non. You know as well as I do, and as the public is 
finding out at last, Mr. Gompers to the contrary not- 
withstanding, that Pinkerton was right, when he said, 
" Organized Labor is organized violence." 



[40] 






CHAPTER VI 

" HUMAN LABOR NOT A COMMODITY OF 
COMMERCE " 

This brings us to consideration of another recent 
discovery of Mr. Gompers, evolved and enunciated 
in the course of his fight against our judges for en- 
forcing the laws against combination in restraint of 
trade ; namely, the principle " that in law and in prac- 
tice it should be held that the labor of a human being 
is not a commodity or article of commerce." 

This rather cryptic principle sets forth what labor 
is not, — but does not define what it is. Mr. Gom- 
pers succeeded in having a declaration of this prin- 
ciple embodied in the Clayton Act of Congress in 
1917 or 191 8, and in "Labor's Bill of Rights" in 
the League of Nations Treaty. Its intent and ap- 
plication are somewhat elucidated in a further pro- 
vision of the Clayton Act, also sponsored by Mr. 
Gompers, excepting laborers and farmers from the 
guilt of and penalties established for combination in 
restraint of trade, imposed on all other classes by 
the common law and the Sherman Act. 

Let me at this point once more sharply draw the 
distinction between what might be called lawful or 
negative coercion — the free action of the law of 
supply and demand; and unlawful or positive coer- 
cion — combination to prevent such free action. 

If you are the only workmen to be had, and you 
choose to strike, I simply must employ you on your 
own conditions or my plant must be idle. I am 

[41] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

coerced all right, but lawfully, by the law of supply 
and demand, if I wish to operate. 

If, however, there are plenty of men to be had 
and you strike, but scare others away from my plant 
by drawing a picket line around it and threatening to 
"knock their block off" if they try to pass, again 
I am coerced, but this time unlawfully. The " right 
to strike," peacefully to quit work, does not in- 
clude the right to force or: scare others from work- 
ing. This is a free country. 

A free people, moreover, has the right to protect 
itself. Under the common law, the noble evolu- 
tion of ages of self-government and respect for jus- 
tice, it has been recognized for centuries as criminal 
and against public policy that groups of men should 
"combine" against the people in restraint of trade, 
to restrict the production or enhance the price of 
food, clothing, or other commodities of commerce. 
It was apparent that, in the nature of things, com- 
paratively few of us are engaged in supplying any 
given commodity to the crowd generally; and that 
by conspiring together a group could, and in fact 
did, exact unduly high prices for their specialty to 
their own unfair advantage over the community. 
The common law therefore rightly prohibited such 
conspiracy, and many statutes have been passed in 
the United States — notoriously the Sherman Law 
— to stop it. 

At the very beginning of trades-unionism it be- 
came evident that organizing strikes was in fact con- 
spiracy to limit the supply and fix the price of labor 
in restraint of trade; always to the injury of the 
buyers of the particular commodity produced by the 
labor, and frequently, as in railway, public service, 
coal, or food supply strikes, to very grave injury of 
the public. Employers very soon began invoking the 

[42] 



LABOR NOT A COMMODITY 

protection of the courts by virtue of the aforesaid 
laws; and a series of decisions of both British and 
American judiciary have established that laborers, 
like merchants, cannot lawfully conspire together to 
restrain the free action of others, even by acts which 
might be perfectly lawful if done individually in the 
exercise of personal liberty. Such acts are, for in- 
stance, the declaration "we don't patronize," the 
establishment of a picket line, etc., or other concerted 
action or conspiracy in restraint of free labor com- 
petition, or free operation of the laws of supply and 
demand. 

Mr. Gompers and the Federation of Labor hav- 
ing been beaten in the courts have sought relief 
from the penalty of the law in politics. (See Re- 
ports of the A. F. L. for 19 18-19 19.) They have 
threatened judges with defeat at the polls for de- 
cisions against labor; so far apparently in vain, it is 
pleasant to note. With Congress they have done 
better, as it has obeyed orders in passing the Adam- 
son Law and the Clayton Act, above mentioned, 
which last excepts labor and farmer combinations, 
while holding all the rest of us guilty of crime if we 
combine to restrain trade. 

The immediate intent of the declaration that the 
labor of a human being is not in law or in practice a 
commodity or article of commerce, is that judges 
may no longer enjoin or punish picketing, the boy- 
cott, or other combinations intended to cut off ma- 
terial or labor supply, as in restraint of commerce or 
trade. 

Of course they are so meant all the same. For 
instance, my coal dealer may not lawfully combine 
with other coal dealers to restrain trade and fix 
prices of coal, and I can enjoin him or punish him in 
the courts for so doing. 

[43] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

But under the Clayton Law the coal teamster's 
union may combine to stop or raise the price of coal 
delivery. I cannot enjoin or punish them for so 
doing, because human labor is "not an article of 
commerce," and therefore stopping teamsters' work 
is not a restraint of trade. The teamsters are not 
guilty 7 . Meantime, what becomes of me? What 
use is it to buy a ton of coal if I cannot get a man to 
put it in my cellar? 

What is to prevent the coal miners or the railway 
brotherhoods from conspiring at any time to stop 
coal and food supply, or the pumping station en- 
gineers from stopping water supply, for thousands 
or millions of fellow citizens, until we perish with 
cold, hunger, or thirst; or else give up to the con- 
spirators such cash or privilege, or both, as they 
choose to extort — all, mind you, without an atom of 
responsibility or risk of one cent's penalty for the 
colossal cost and misery entailed, imposed upon 
either leaders or laborers? 

We may remark in passing that no law ever passed 
by servile politicians shows more contemptible cow- 
ardice on the part of the ?;n5representatives of the 
people, in Congress assembled or elsewhere, than the 
provisions of the Clayton Act passed at the request 
of Mr. Gompers; yet they were hardly noticed at 
the time by you gentlemen of the press, to whom I 
am now displaying their purport. They have not 
as yet been brought to test by the United States 
Supreme Court. When that test comes, though I 
am not a lawyer, I have every confidence that they 
will be invalidated as unconstitutional. They have 
already been ignored by the United States Circuit 
Court, Eighth Circuit, in the Coronada Coal Case. 
I call your attention to the A. F. L. Report for 19 19, 
which truly says of it: " This decision is far reaching 

[44] 



LABOR NOT A COMMODITY 

and of vital importance to the organized labor move- 
ment of America. If the decision of the Circuit 
Court is affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United 
States and stands as a principle of law, the existence 
of every national and international union is endan- 
gered." (See Report, page ioo.) 

The decision referred to awarded a verdict of 
six hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars against 
the United Mine Workers, for conspiracy with cer- 
tain unionized mine owners to interfere with the pro- 
duction and commerce of other owners who followed 
a non-union policy, by means of strikes and attendant 
violence. 

It is absolutely true, as the Report says, that "the 
existence of every national union is endangered" by 
this decision. Every one of them is, and always 
has been, guilty of conspiracy to interfere with pro- 
duction, attended with varying degrees of breach of 
law. But for the purposes of this chapter I think 
the reader will require no further proof of the de- 
liberate crookedness and irresponsibility of Mr. 
Gompers' great machine than reference to his own 
19 1 8 Report, his action of 19 18 in procuring by the 
Clayton Act attempted immunity from the conse- 
quences of crime; and finally the following quotation 
from his 1919 Report — reciting the defenses set up 
in the Coronada Case by Organized Labor, as 
follows : 

" The United Mine Workers contended : 

" 1st. That our unincorporated labor-union is irresponsible 
in the eyes of the law, and cannot be held in damages for the 
acts of its members. 

" 2nd. That the Bache-Denman Strike and alleged riot 
was a purely local affair, with which the international organ- 
ization of the mine workers had nothing to do. 

" 3rd. That the union rules forbade violence by the mem- 

[45] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

bers, and that if members of the union had disobeyed these 
rules the union was not responsible." 

A perfect example of "pleading the baby act," is 
it not? 

Note. Since the foregoing was written, a very interesting case of re- 
straint of strike by injunction has developed at the works of the United 
Shoe Machinery Company at Beverly, Mass. The unions are obeying 
the injunction, outwardly at least, but are considering, as I write this 
note, calling a general strike of other unions in other industries, as a pro- 
test against the court action in this case. 

It is cited at some length in a subsequent chapter on Collective Bar- 
gaining. 

On June 20, 1920, a very important case was decided in the Amalga- 
mated-Clothing-Workers Michaels-Stern & Co. litigation at Roches 
growing out of the attempt of the Amalgamated to shut the United 
Garment Workers (the union affiliated with the A. F. L.) out of the 
Michaels-Stern shop by force and violence. The court upheld the right 
of the Amalgamated to organize the shop against the other union, 
but not the right to force things by combination and violence. Heavy 
damages were awarded the employers (who apparently had made a col- 
lective bargain with the United Garment Workers) against the Amalga- 
mated, notwithstanding the Clayton Act. The individual members of 
the union were not held liable, however. 

The decision will not be welcome to Organized Labor, nevertheless; 
it cuts too many ways. Union funds were held responsible, and the acts 
of a labor-combination were not shielded from criminality by the Clayton 
Act. 



[46] 



CHAPTER VII 

CENTRALIZED LABOR CONTROL. CENSOR- 
SHIP OF THE PRESS 

Absolutely centralized, militant control of all 
labor, and eventually of government, in the hands of 
a small compact group, so far dominated by himself, 
has been Mr. Gompers' most conspicuous and con- 
sistent policy since the foundation of the A. F. L. 
forty years ago. For proof of this see the oft- 
quoted Report of the A. F. L. for any year (say 
19 1 9, at pages xxviii to xxxii) showing how every 
detail of vital action of the local unions, though 
based upon referendum vote in most cases, is subject 
to ultimate control of the Executive Council of the 
Federation (see also page 447). The diagram on 
page 62 of the Report is a forcible visual presen- 
tation of this centralization of power, and shows 
presumably its evolution through years of consistent 
application of the principle " all for one, one for 
all" (diagram reproduced supra, Chapter III). 

We Americans are so jealous of centralized power 
in our politics that a mere reading of this Report 
ought to make us react vigorously against the same 
evil in our industry. That it is an evil of the first 
magnitude appears more disastrously from day to 
day as the newspapers record current illustrations 
of it. Gompers and Company have but one ob- 
ject and always the same, to force settlement of all 
labor matters into collective central control, ofttimes 
through governmental mediation or arbitration; be- 

[47] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

cause political pressure comes cheaper and gives 
better results than long-drawn strikes. Certainly 
they have got the country to the point where the 
President, Congress, the Governor, the Legislature, 
the Mayor, the City Council, one or all of them, 
expect to be called in to mediate or force settlement 
of a constantly more stubborn succession of strikes, 
contrived by ever growing and more rapacious 
unions, always at the cost of the public. It would be 
ridiculous, were it not so outrageous, that our over- 
worked national, state, and local executives are thus 
forced to waste time, meddling between buyer and 
seller of labor. It is perfectly plain that it is enor- 
mously profitable to Gompers and Company to keep 
buyer and seller of labor in continual hot water, and 
consequently that political meddling will always be 
called for, yet never yield permanent results in the 
way of peace. 

I imagine that in organizing the Federation Mr. 
Gompers took the unions as he found them, carpen- 
ters, blacksmiths, plumbers, etc., each trade by itself 
organized into local unions ; first integrating say the 
local carpenters into a national organization, then 
the blacksmiths, etc., recognizing the autonomy of 
each trade. Probably he had to do so, and to respect 
the power of each leader over his own craft. Then 
he federated these national unions into a national 
federation, with local federations and departments 
to cover various local and jurisdictional relations, I 
fancy, that are immaterial here. This mode of 
unionizing by trades extends each national union 
horizontally, like a great spider web, across all the 
industries, however diverse, which employ members 
of the same handicrafts. 

For instance, a typewriter factory I once con- 
trolled was suddenly " organized," and I found I had 

[48] 



CENTRALIZED CONTROL 

to deal with six unions — blacksmiths, machinists, 
screw machine men, metal workers, polishers, japann 
ners. The same unions, and others, had members at 
work in a neighboring ice machine factory, a saw 
factory, a reaper works, an electric switchboard 
works, etc. So, when strikes were called, my settle- 
ment was tied into settlements with all these in a 
way that created an impossible situation for me. It 
will readily be seen, however, that this arrangement 
is positively ideal for throwing all the settlements 
with all the factories into the control of the Chicago 
Federation of Labor — thoroughly centralizing it. 
Not one of the factories could quietly settle with its 
own men without interference from the Federation, 
because, the latter said, of settlements pending with 
others. Of course this magnified the influence and 
importance of the officials of the Chicago Federa- 
tion. Extend the same autonomous trade organiza- 
tion over great national industries like steel, coal, 
and railways, and you hugely magnify the power and 
importance of the American Federation officials. 
They will never voluntarily throw away one atom of 
that power and importance. 

The unions are practically forced, in order to 
magnify the value of unionization, get in more mem- 
bers, increase their strength, and collect more dues, 
to deny every right to the non-union workman of the 
same trade. Union men must combine against him, 
refuse to work with him, keep him out of a job, call 
him and his family " scabs," slug him when the time 
comes, if a little slugging seems advisable. 

Rival unions in the same trade are not permissible. 
Every union must be " chartered" by the national 
body of the same trade, or be " outlawed" by the 
latter, which refuses to work with " outlaws." The 
Federation, for instance, outlaws the I. W. W. and 

[49] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

will have no work or dealings with it. It can be 
readily seen that Mr. Gompers and his lieutenants 
would rapidly lose control and prestige if there were 
large and powerful independent unions to compete 
for work, wages, and political favors with the Feder- 
ation unions. Precisely the same motive evidently 
influences their attitude to State Socialism and 
Bolshevism. Each would abolish Capitalism, each 
would set up a form of government that would swal- 
low up "Labor." The occupation oi labor leader, 
the handling of millions of labor union funds, the 
near-control of vast industries, and the marshaling 
of thousands of votes would vanish at once. Mr. 
Gompers' great creation, the Federation of Labor, 
would disappear — unless he could expand it quickly 
enough to control a majority instead of less than a 
tenth oi the electorate and capture the State. Even 
so, it would disappear in the State, and other in- 
terests than those of labor would develop and create 
a situation harder to control. 

For it may be remarked in passing, that in union- 
ization, laborers are actuated by one main and con- 
stant motive instilled by their leaders — namely, 
more pay for less work — whose simplicity makes 
labor politics almost child's play compared to the 
man's job of party politics, with its countless cross 
currents, shifting issues, racial and regional causes. 

But to come back to Mr. Gompers: In order to 
hold the union men firmly, to keep absolute control, 
he has always fought the "open shop," and opposes 
every form of individualism, of wages based upon 
output, — such as piecework, bonus or premium 
plans, "scientific management," "speeding up," — 
that is, every means by which a strong and skill- 
ful workman can individually earn much more, can 
pile up a better output and pav check, than a slow 

[50] 




CENTRALIZED CONTROL 

man beside him, because such extra earning tends 
to make the fast man independent, unwilling to 
strike, — to tie him to his employer and his job. 
Gompers fights for the same reason every form of 
profit-sharing, of assisting laborers to save and buy 
stock in the business, as the Steel Corporation does. 
He is said, though this I cannot vouch for, even to 
oppose laborers' ownership of homes near factories 
in country towns, because that too ties them to their 
job, makes them slow to strike, — too peaceful and 
industrious. 

Again, he fights employers who take signed con- 
tracts from their men for a term of employment, 
because that ties them. He opposes direct confer- 
ence between employers and their own men before 
or in case of difficulty between them, demanding 
always that union officials alone shall represent the 
men in conference. He fights compulsory arbitra- 
tion, as under the new Labor Court in Kansas, which 
can overrule the Federation's call for a strike. He 
fights the recent movement among employers to en- 
courage workmen in each establishment to elect, 
as an independent unit, not tangled into unions, a 
" shop committee," that can meet and confer reg- 
ularly with the management on all questions of 
hours, wages, conditions, and practice; thus afford- 
ing the so-called personal contact, which tends to 
promote friendly relations and confidence and head 
off strife between employers and employees. 

Most of all, Mr. Gompers fights uncompromis- 
ingly all legislation that in any way limits his cen- 
tralized power. For instance, he quit the first 
Industrial Conference called by President Wilson 
because the employers' group would not recognize 
his Federation as sole bargainer for labor, but stood 
firm for the " open shop," and the right to bargain 

[5i] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

direct with any laborer who might choose to deal 
that way. 

He is now fighting the recommendations of the 
second Industrial Conference because they would 
unionize each establishment by itself as an industry 
(not tied by numerous federated trade-unions to 
other establishments), and at the same time would 
create shop committees for frequent conference and 
friendly relations with management, touching all 
questions of wages, hours, conditions, etc. All cul- 
tivation of friendly relations Gompers considers a 
menace to the labor unions — as indeed it is to his 
kind of centrally controlled unionism, which is in- 
tended to keep the laborers hostile and on strike. 
Mr. Gompers objects also to the conference's plan 
for prevention of strikes by requiring submission of 
differences to regional labor courts of adjustment, 
because he says such machinery is superfluous. He 
says that his Federation of Labor is all the machinery 
that is needed for the preservation of industrial 
peace, and that it " functions perfectly," whenever 
the pig-headed employers do not refuse its kind 
offices. The lion lies down with the lamb — inside! 

Of course, if the employers simply obeyed when- 
ever the Federation spoke, there would be industrial 
peace, deep peace, no wage controversies, and prob- 
ably not much wage to controvert. Mr. Gompers 
runs true to form for centralized and militant con- 
trol of labor. He does not really want peace, but 
war and conquest; organized labor always conqueror, 
himself and his group always dictators. 

I hope I have shown above that, in their very 
nature, these great national and international strike 
machines, the local Federations and the American 
Federation, tying many thousands of unions together 
in colossal centralization, are in practice absolutely 

[52] 



CENTRALIZED CONTROL 

incompatible with quick settlement or permanent 
peace. If further proof of this be needed, the ac- 
counts of any important strikes in the daily papers — 
whether purely local, such as the Boston police strike, 
or the current (March 31, 1920) New York Ferry 
strike; or widespread, such as the 19 19 steel and 
coal strikes — will furnish it. They sooner or later 
disclose Mr. Gompers' interference, intriguing al- 
ways with the political powers, local or national, to 
force employers to some mode of settlement involv- 
ing recognition and participation of union machinery, 
always repudiating direct settlement with the men, 
as individuals. 

The great steel strike, for instance, was called to 
force Judge Gary to confer, not with his own men 
as he was ready to do, but with Messrs. Fitzpatrick 
and Foster, for twenty-six international, federated 
unions, claiming to act for all labor in every steel 
works in America. Verily a magnificent claim, only 
disproved by the dead failure of the whole huge 
bluff as soon as maintenance of law and order by 
General Wood permitted a " show-down " ! 

As I am writing these words (April 4, 1920), 
New York press dispatches tell of the Jersey Ferry- 
boat strike, called because the Erie Railroad pro- 
poses to sell some unemployed boats to a private 
owner who may possibly refuse to be bound by the 
Adamson eight-hour law, as the railways are; a 
" grievance " connected in the endless chain fashion 
beloved of labor leaders with some dispute between 
the United Fruit Company and the longshoremen; 
a snarl likely, so say Mr. Maher and Mr. Healey, 
to develop into a national strike of six million trades- 
unionists, plans for which, says the union spokesman, 
will be submitted to Mr. Gompers and the Executive 
Council " for guarantees that the eight-hour day 

[53] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

will not be done away with." This explains New 
York dispatches of March 31, which tell us that 
" an effort will be made in Washington tomorrow to 
end the coastwise strike, when representatives of 
both factions will meet in the office of Secretary 
of Labor Wilson." 

Compare with the above Chicago dispatches of 
same date, viz. : " Nelson and Spangler, department 
of labor mediators, arrived today from Washington 
to attempt settlement of the strike of nine hundred 
members of the Live St-^ck Handlers Union, which 
has thrown nearly ten thousand men out of work. 
Meantime, stock normally destined for Chicago is 
routed to other packing points. Chicago packers 
usually pay out $3,000,000 a day at this time of the 
year for live stock, and this business has stopped. 
A shortage of fresh meat has brought about a sharp 
advance in prices. No pork was offered in today's 
market." 

Always Washington, Washington, Washington! 
And in the background or foreground, as the case 
may be, always Gompers, Gompers, Gompers ! 

A few days later Chicago dispatches of April 5 
report several thousand "insurgent" switchmen on 
strike, likely to cause a shutdown next day of pack- 
ing houses employing fifty thousand men, but add 
that the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen will 
shortly discipline the insurgents and permit the rail- 
roads to run again. 

(By the way, what fun it must be to try to run a 
packing house in Chicago, with cattle-feed strikers 
on one hand, switchmen strikers on the other, the 
Attorney General trust-busting in front and profiteer- 
punching behind, the people damning you because 
you don't keep the price of beef down, and the 
farmers because you don't keep it up !) 

[54] 



CENTRALIZED CONTROL 

So, not long ago the A. F. L. was disciplining the 
11 insurgent'' or "outlaw" printers in New York. 
As far as these efforts of the great international 
unions go to carry out their "collective bargains," 
they constitute the one commendable deed of Organ- 
ized Labor I have been able to cite. But, unfor- 
tunately, even the Federation does not seem able to 
enforce discipline if its orders are momentarily un- 
popular with the men concerned. That was the case 
also in the recent soft coal and steel strikes. 

But why pile proof on proof of centralization and 
its evils? The great net fact that stands out from 
the whole huge welter of confusing evidence is, that 
the greater the centralization and federation of the 
unions, the bigger and costlier the strike, the more 
confused and conflicting the interests involved, and 
the slower and less lasting the peace that eventually 
is bound to come whenever the workingmen have 
spent their money and are forced to earn again or 
starve; when, in other words, the moment arrives 
for the law of supply and demand, which Mr. Gom- 
pers says no longer applies to labor, quietly to re- 
sume control. 

That law is the only final arbiter, the only just 
and impartial judge, the only real friend of the 
workingmen, the only foundation of industrial peace 
and commercial prosperity, if the evidence we have 
before us can be depended on. 

An amusing conflict between Mr. Gompers' theory 
and practice in centralized control of all labor 
cropped out during the joint debate on the Kansas 
Industrial Court between Governor Allen of Kansas 
and Mr. Gompers, staged at Carnegie Hall, New 
York, May 28. 

Mr. Gompers, as always, vigorously asserted the 
unlimited right of the laborer to strike, " the right of 

155] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

a freeman to dispose of himself, of his labor and his 
labor power." Governor Allen quietly asked him 
"who then had the divine right to forbid the switch- 
men to strike in the recent "outlaw strike," who 
then "controlled this divine right to strike"? Mr. 
Gompers replied he would like to answer if he had 
time." 

Voices from the audience shouted "You can't." 
Governor Allen's questions are abundantly answered, 
however, in the Laws of the Federation of Labor. 
(See the oft-cited Report for 19 19, pages xxviii to 
xxxii.) 

Another illustration of autocratic centralized con- 
trol of Mr. Gompers' Federation, and this a most 
important one, occurs in the testimony of Mr. E. J. 
McCone of the Buffalo Commercial — a paper that 
runs non-union — before the Senate News Print In- 
vestigating Committee, at Washington, May 3. He 
charged that the International Typographical Union 
" through censorship by the shop-chapel kept articles 
unfavorable to Organized Labor out of most news- 
papers." He said that his own paper and the New 
York Times were the only two Eastern papers to 
print certain parts of Judge Gary's testimony before 
the Steel Strike Investigation Senate Committee, and 
that the Buffalo News had, after putting the story in 
type, been forced to change it under pressure from 
the shop-chapel. He further cited the oath, binding 
members of this union, swearing " fidelity to my 
union and its members, above any other obligation, 
social, political, religious, fraternal or otherwise." 

You, gentlemen of the press, will know whether 
this serious charge is true, and it will be a matter of 
honor with you to vindicate the freedom of the press. 
I call your serious attention to Mr. McCone's ad- 
dress before the 1920 Convention of the National 

[56] 



CENTRALIZED CONTROL 

Metal Trades Association, in which he repeats, with 
great detail of supporting evidence, the charge that 
the press is almost solidly muzzled by the Typo- 
graphical Union on the important subject of the 
"closed shop"; that since 19 17 no article criticizing 
the closed shop or advocating the " open shop " has 
appeared in any American newspaper except the 
Buffalo Commercial, the Los Angeles Times, the 
Arizona Gazette, and the Hamilton (Can.) Daily 
News. 

In view of Mr. McCone's very definite assertions, 
it will be exceedingly interesting to note whether 
the press will find anything of interest at this time, 
or worthy of public discussion, in this book, which I 
am so directly presenting to your notice. 



[57] 



CHAPTER VIII 

FAILURE OF ORGANIZATION TO BENEFIT 
WORKERS 

Until of late the American people have been and 
probably still are friendly to organized labor, ac- 
cepting as well founded Mr. Gompers' perpetual 
assertion that " there are no means whereby the 
workers can obtain and maintain fair wages except 
through trade-union effort" (see Report, page 72). 
Supposed humanitarian purpose has justified him 
in the eyes of many thousands of excellent people 
(especially clergymen) who neither create industries 
nor employ labor, and who perhaps take at par his 
declaration (same report and page) that "there is 
in fact no such condition as an iron law of wages, 
based upon a natural law of supply and demand. 
Conditions in commerce and industry . . . influx 
enced by combinations and trusts, have effectively de- 
stroyed the theory of a natural law of supply and 
demand, as formulated by doctrinaire economists." 

As a matter of fact there could be no more colos- 
sal demonstration of the general falsity of the above 
assertions than the actual course of wages and prices 
of commodities during the forty years of Mr. Gom- 
pers' presidency of the A. F. L. To put the facts 
bluntly, the old law of supply and demand, sup- 
posed by him to have been destroyed by the Trusts 
and Combinations (and which indeed was vainly 
assailed by all of them, especially by the Labor 
Trust), has been on the job every minute, and has 
proved itself to be a royal paymaster of the non- 

[58] 



FAILURE TO BENEFIT WORKERS 

union man. Meantime "trades union effort," sup- 
posed to be the only salvation of the union man, 
has proved itself his rank enemy. 

I will not attempt here, for lack of space, to in- 
sert a comparative tabulation of wages and prices 
sufficiently exhaustive to cover all crafts and locali- 
ties throughout the United States during the last 
forty years, but will refer the reader, for pre-war 
averages, to the valuable United States Senate Com- 
mission Report on Course of Prices and Wages 
from 1900 to 1907, to the nearest United States 
Employment Bureau office for current wages, and 
to any grocer for current prices. The Department 
of Commerce and Labor has published also many 
bulletins on the course of wages and prices which 
it does not seem to me necessary to wade through. 
Simpler and quite as conclusive proof is at hand, as 
follows : 

The Senate Report referred to above clearly es- 
tablishes the fact that between 1900 and 1907, while 
leading commodities advanced in price 17 per cent, 
unorganized farm labor advanced 63 per cent; half 
organized hosiery labor advanced 40 per cent; 
highly organized railway labor advanced 33 per 
cent; best organized locomotive engineers, 20 per 
cent. The same report showed union carpenters 
earning different wages in different cities, from $18 
in Louisville to $27.50 in Chicago; and union type- 
setters from 43 cents per hour in Philadelphia to 
80 cents in San Francisco. In other words, non- 
union labor fared best; while union labor fared 
worse and worse in proportion to degree of union- 
ization — the strongest union faring worst; while 
members of the same unions, at the same time, but 
in different cities, drew widely different pay for 
same work, determined by local demand and supply. 

[59] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

Now I venture to say that the reader will find 
precisely the same situation today, if he will check 
up for himself wages in a few typical trades, as I 
have done. For instance, Mr. Stone, Grand Chief 
of the Locomotive Engineers Brotherhood, sent me 
recently a detailed comparison of engineers' wages 
with those of 1880, with the following comments 
in answer to my remark that wages had doubled in 
the forty intervening years: "Not only have the 
rates not been doubled, but the percentage of in- 
crease given to locomotive engineers is very small 
when compared with the wages now paid to other 
classes demanding any degree of skill. . . . The 
locomotive engineer today is the lowest paid worker, 
when the skill and responsibility required of him is 
taken into consideration." Mr. Stone was quite 
right. 

Plumbers just now receive 90 to 100 cents an 
hour as against 35 to 40 cents in 1880. Carpenters 
about the same, say $36 per week. Farm laborers 
get, according to the Boston Herald of May 19, 
in Maine and Rhode Island $65 to $75 a month 
and board, against $12 to $15 in 1880; common 
laborers, 46 to 50 cents an hour, against 12^ to 
15 cents an hour in 1880, — current figures from 
United States Employment Office in Boston three 
months ago. Cooks and housemaids are offered in 
Boston papers now $14 to $16, and in the country 
$10 to $12 a week, as against $3 and $4 a week in 
1880. The plumbers and carpenters are well union- 
ized; farm, common, and domestic labor not at all. 

In short, wages have risen universally. But in the 
A. F. L. Report for 19 19, pages 47 to 61, two hun- 
dred and twenty-five union leaders claim the credit 
for the rise as " the result of organization" giving 
figures ; and their constituents doubtless believe their 

[60] 



FAILURE TO BENEFIT WORKERS 



claim. The figures are, however, so variously made 
up as to be incapable of tabulation for averages. I 
have roughly averaged the increases, for which 
thirty-one out of the one hundred and ten big inter- 
national unions claim credit; apparently, and in some 
cases stated to be, the totals since 1881. 

Wage Increases Claimed 
Bill Posters Pre 

Broom and Whisk Mkrs ' 

Railway Carmen ' 

Carvers ' 

Diamond Cutters * 

Chemical Workers ' 

Elevator Men ' 

Marine Engineers ' 

Stationary Engineers ' 

Granite Workers ' 

Hatters ' 

Hodcarriers ' 

Laundry Workers ' 

Marble Workers 

Metal Workers 

Painters and Decorators 

Pattern Makers 

Paving Cutters 

Plumbers 

Print Cutters 

Sulphite Paper Workers 

Quarrymen 

Roofers 

Seamen 

Tobacco Workers 

Tunnel Workers 

Upholsterers 

Wire Weavers 

Cabinet Makers 

Cement Workers 

City Employees 

3 1 trades, total present wage 



Present wages, average 



7618 



^LAIMEI 


) 




Per cent. 


wage equivalent 


to 


200 


tt 


n 


a 


200 


u 


a 


it 


225 


« 


tt 


tt 


233 


tt 


tt 


tt 


235 


a 


a 


tt 


350 


a 


tt 


tt 


320 


(( 


a 


tt 


300 


it 


tt 


tt 


300 


it 


tt 


tt 


220 


a 


tt 


tt 


240 


tt 


it 


it 


480 


tt 


a 


tt 


200 


tt 


u 


<< 


200 


tt 


tt 


tt 


242 


tt 


a 


it 


220 


tt 


a 


a 


457 


tt 


a 


it 


157 


tt 


tt 


tt 


225 


tt 


tt 


tt 


150 


tt 


a 


a 


3SO 


tt 


tt 


tt 


235 


tt 


a 


tt 


250 


tt 


ti 


tt 


400 


tt 


a 


tt 


165 


it 


tt 


u 


200 


tt 


it 


tt 


225 


it 


tt 


it 


130 


tt 


tt 


tt 


163 


tt 


tt 


tt 


171 


tt 


tt 


a 


175 
7618 


early 246% of old wages 


say of 


1880 







Note. These figures are necessarily approximate, because the claims 
of the reports are approximate and variously made up. The foregoing 
are arrived at by comparing present with old wage rates, where given, 
and figuring the percentage of increase. Calling the old rates 100 per- 
cent, the present average rates show a gain of 246 — 100 = 146 % gain. 

[61] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

Gains run from 30 per cent for the wire weavers 
(probably a very recent union) to 380 per cent for 
hodcarriers, and 359 per cent for pattern makers 
(which last two look doubtful on their face, but I 
accept them). Altogether they average an increase 
of 146 per cent; and if they fairly represent union 
labor it is drawing today about two and one half 
times the gross wages it drew, let us say, in 1881, 
when the Federation was formed. Recent inquiry 
at the United States Employment Office in Boston 
confirms this average; and the union claims may be 
accepted as correct as to the ratio of increase se- 
cured. Hours of labor have shortened everywhere, 
but to about the same extent, whether on union or 
non-union jobs. 

Now note that farm labor, strictly unorganized 
and five times as numerous as all union labor, has 
risen to four and five times the wage of 1880; and 
that common labor, far more numerous than union 
labor and entirely non-union, floating around at all 
sorts of work, has risen to three and a half and four 
times old pay. Domestic and commercial labor, un- 
organized, twice as numerous as union labor, has 
likewise risen three or four to one. No unions exist 
to boast of these gains, which far exceed those of 
union labor; but they are matters of common knowl- 
edge. Any man can verify for himself, by ask- 
ing any elderly day laborer, housemaid, cook, farm 
hand, carpenter, plumber, or locomotive engineer, 
what wages are now and what they were when he 
or she was young, and will realize then that wages 
in those steam-and-water-tight unions lag far behind 
non-union wages in relative increase. 

Meantime cost of living has substantially doubled 
(see Department of Labor Reports), so that all 
labor, union or not, is now better off than ever be- 

[62] 



FAILURE TO BENEFIT WORKERS 

fore, as appears from huge savings bank deposit 
increases and popular extravagance. Clerical and 
professional workers, teachers, and the fixed-small- 
salary classes, alone are worse off than of old; not 
because they are not unionized, but because the de- 
mand for their services does not double up with in- 
tensive business activity. May I emphasize, gentlemen 
of the press, the fact that totally unorganized, non- 
union domestic, farm, and common labor is now 
drawing three to three and a half times the wages 
of 1880, while the most highly unionized laborer, 
the locomotive engineer, draws but two or two and 
a half times as much; and such well-unionized labor 
as that of plumbers and carpenters draws only two 
and a quarter to two and a half the old figures. 
May I point out that those three classes of labor 
(common, farm, and domestic) are the great classes, 
aggregating twenty-seven million unorganized work- 
ers, against around four millions organized; and 
that their only friend is the law of supply and de- 
mand, which Gompers says is dead and buried. 
That no union has helped them, and they have had 
to do without the " only means whereby the workers 
can obtain and maintain fair wages"; but that 
nevertheless for forty years they have done rela- 
tively better and better than union labor has done — 
doing best of all during the extraordinary upheaval 
of industrial conditions caused by the great war. 

Verily, Mr. Gompers may rail at the law of 
supply and demand, but it will continue in busi- 
ness at the old stand; and just as sure as wind, 
weather, and dry rot level the trees of the for- 
ests, so will its ceaseless operation defeat and de- 
stroy his huge but useless Federation of Labor. Let 
us hope it may fertilize the soil for growth of better 
things when it falls and decays. 

[63] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

Meantime, why should free, unorganized labor 
do so much better than union labor, as shown 
above? The question is interesting and the answer 
even more so. The only economic explanation that 
fits the circumstances is in the inefficiency of union 
labor; the result of the Gompers' Gospel of Sloth, 
of Idleness, of least work for most pay — an im- 
possible Gospel. 



[6 4 ] 



CHAPTER IX 

THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR. IN- 
EFFICIENCY. THE GOSPEL OF SLOTH 

We now reach, and I call particular attention to, 
the worst mischief so far done by Labor to industry 
and the community; though its effort to demoralize 
our politics may yet inflict deeper injury upon our be- 
loved country. I refer to its deliberate minimizing 
of production. It constitutes one of the heaviest 
handicaps against which the employer has to con- 
tend, and is far more responsible for his hatred of 
trades-unionism than any matter of mere wages. 

It has from the very beginning, long before Gom- 
pers' time, been the theory of the unions that it is 
a mistake for a man to " speed up," to do all he 
can in return for his wages, all the time; because his 
employer will not then need to hire so many men to 
do the same work, and some man is sure to be left 
out of a job. That man is also sure to be the poor- 
est, least efficient workman; the man that likes to 
take a day off now and then, and is not only by 
nature a little slow but a little lazy; the man that likes 
agitation better than steady work. 

The unions figure that there is only so much work 
to go around, and it must be split up into smaller 
stents, so as to keep the largest number of men on 
the pay roll. They would force the employer 'to 
retain the slow men by holding back the fast men 
and cutting down the hours of work. They entirely 

[65] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

overlook the great factor of growth, which the em- 
ployer has always at heart, and ignore the fact that 
the way to increase demand for labor and its pay 
is to increase output and cheapen cost of production 
and selling price. Low price creates sales and 
growth, and demand for greater works and longer 
pay rolls. Growth always tends, too, to diversifi- 
cation of product, and in that way also to lengthen 
the pay roll. 

It is strange that labor leaders, after more than 
a half century of opportunity to learn, never seem 
to comprehend this simple law of trade. The very 
latest official action of the A. F. L. Convention at 
Montreal (June, 1920) shows Mr. Gompers and 
his lieutenants, still in the role of " stand-patters," 
enemies of "speeding-up," fighters of efficient pro- 
duction. Though talented agitators, they are es- 
sentially laboring men, not captains of industry. 
They run true to mental form. 

It is the consensus of opinion of employers, often 
enough publicly expressed to be a matter of com- 
mon knowledge, that union labor is not more than 
two thirds as efficient as non-union labor — that is, 
does not do more than two thirds as much work in 
the same time. The union gospels of sloth, the dis- 
honest and contemptible union purpose to give less 
and less work for more and more pay, are spread 
all over the much-quoted Report, which, as before, 
will be the foundation of my judgment of Mr. Gom- 
pers — strengthened, of course, by citation of con- 
crete cases in point, and other extraneous evidence. 

The "Reconstruction Program" adapted by the 
A. F. L. at its 19 19 meeting says (Report, page 
72): "There must be no reduction in wages; in 
many instances wages must be increased." "The 
workers demand a living wage for all wage-earners, 

[66] 



GOSPEL OF SLOTH 

skilled or unskilled — a wage which will enable the 
worker and his family to live in health and comfort, 
provide a competence for idleness and old age, and 
afford to all the opportunity of cultivating all that 
is best within mankind." "The shorter work day 
and work week make for a constantly growing, 
higher and better standard of productivity, health, 
longevity, morals and citizenship." u The right of 
labor to fix its hours of work must not be abrogated 
or interfered with." , 

" The day's working time should be limited to not 
more than eight hours — the week's working time 
to not more than live and one half days." 

Resolution No. 160 (see Report, pages 452 
et seq.) reads in part as follows: "Whereas tre- 
mendous changes have taken place in the industries 
of this country and the world; due to introduction 
of new machinery, tools, processes and methods of 
efficiency, and production of commodities, which has 
increased to a great degree; therefore be it Re- 
solved, that the A. F. L. and its affiliated organiza- 
tions conduct in the future a campaign of education 
to establish the universal 6-Hour day, etc." The 
Committee on Shorter Workday recommended that 
the A. F. L. lend assistance to any union seeking to 
establish a shorter workday, that will provide for 
the employment of all its members; and this recom- 
mendation was adopted. 

The foregoing official record of the action of the 
A. F. L. shows that it presents seven points (not 
fourteen this time) : 

1. That wages shall be maintained or increased. 

2. That wages shall be big enough to make every worker 

well off, even in old age. 

3. That the hours of work shall be reduced. 

4. That labor shall fix those hours. 

[67] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

5. That, as machinery and methods improve, so as to in- 

crease production, working hours must be shortened, 
presumably enough to keep production down to old 
levels. 

6. Resolution No. 160 evidently aims at getting rid of 

non-employment by shortening work hours so as to 
take more men to do same work. 

7. Resolutions No. in and No. 152 (see page 381), 

against profiteering, show that Labor proposes to 
stop rise in prices of commodities. Shortage in sup- 
ply is implied, as the stopper. 

Perhaps you, Messrs. Press Writers, reading 
these Gompers' seven points, are asking yourselves, 
as men of ordinary intelligence, just how Organized 
Labor is going to " democratize industry " so as to 
increase wages to a point far beyond the world's 
experience, while likewise decreasing hours of work, 
without enormously increasing cost of production; 
also just how shortening hours and putting on more 
men to do the same work to end unemployment, 
or shortening hours to nullify the increased product 
gained by better methods and machinery, can pos- 
sibly relieve short supply or reduce high cost of 
commodities, as recited in the Resolutions? 

Maybe you ask yourselves also whether Mr. 
Gompers is so stupid as to believe his own econom- 
ics; whether he honestly thinks the trusts and the 
A. F. L. really can defy the law of supply and de- 
mand; or that his Reconstruction Program will actu- 
ally enable Labor to get more out of the world by 
putting less into it. 

He may be so stupid and yet may be sincere, but 
I doubt both hypotheses. His record discloses a 
demagogue of very unusual personal force, who 
sizes up his followers perfectly and feeds them 
seven points, or seventy, such as they like, and such 

[68] 



GOSPEL OF SLOTH 

as will "get by." One of these points is simple 
sloth. It appeals to us all, as to the tired Vermont 
farmer's wife, who soliloquized as follows : 

11 1 wisht I was a little stun, 

A settin' on a hill, 
I would n't do a gol-darned thing 

But stay there, settin' still. 
I would n't eat, I would n't drink ; 

I would n't dress, nor wash, 
But set and set a thousand years, 

And rest myself, by gosh! " 

Ants and bees, one or two animals, and some men, 
work hard and save for others to enjoy after they 
are gone; but all the other living creatures work just 
hard enough to live from season to season, and 
from the cradle to the grave. Nature, like Shake- 
speare, is content merely to 

" Give Richard leave to live till Richard die." 

Taking the world as a whole, or each country by 
itself, its inhabitants consume each year all the 
perishable commodities, food, clothing, etc., which 
they produce; or, to turn the equation around 
the other way, they will not produce more than is 
wanted for consumption. No manufacturer will go 
on making cotton cloth if it piles up on his shelves 
unsold; no farmer will seed his acres for corn if his 
last year's crop unsold remains in his bins over seed- 
time. Rather than produce what he cannot sell, he 
will rest himself, by gosh ! 

A very little thought will show the sure result of 
the Gompers' gospel of sloth. The bulk of human 
labor is spent on the production and distribution of 
perishable goods, food and clothing, light, fuel, etc. 
All of these are consumed every year, or spoil. They 
cannot be accumulated as lasting wealth because 

[69] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

they are perishable. For that reason the world pro- 
duces only just enough of them to go around, and 
carry over from one season to the next. 

The remainder of human labor — not a very large 
part of it, say one tenth — is spent in producing im- 
perishables, so called, like gold and jewels; or slowly 
perishables, like buildings and bridges; or short- 
lived wealth, like railways, manufacturing plants, etc. 
Of the imperishables, only those which are rare, 
like gold, are valuable, and can be accumulated as 
stored-up wealth; while buildings, railways, manu- 
facturing plants, etc., which in their very nature re- 
quire much labor to produce, are therefore rare. 
There is not and never can be enough of any of 
these imperishables, or slowly perishables, to go all 
around; nor can the latter often be split up for 
physical distribution, even when considerable in 
quantity and value. 

Everywhere, from year to year, there is just 
about enough of perishable goods to go around 
among us all, and no more — even for Rockefeller, 
who eats no more than you or I, while what he does 
not eat must spoil on his hands; and there is never 
anywhere near enough of imperishables, or slowly 
perishables, to go around. In other words, very 
few men ever can be rich! 

It stands to reason, then, that workers who de- 
liberately cut down production — either by working 
shorter hours or by slowing down their pace while 
at work — of perishable goods, whose normal sup- 
ply is just enough to go around, must not only stint 
us all, but especially themselves. For they have 
nothing but their own contribution to the general 
stock, against which to draw from it such goods as 
they need. In cutting down their own output they 
cut down their own purchasing power also. 

[70] 



GOSPEL OF SLOTH 

The same is true, and much more true, of the 
imperishables, whose supply is never nearly large 
enough to go around. If the workers cut down 
their own production thereof, they cut down still 
more their own purchasing power. 

That is the logical, and it seems to me unescap- 
able, explanation why free unorganized labor, which 
can and does produce more and more efficiently 
as machinery and methods improve, forges ahead 
faster and faster in comparison with organized 
labor, hobbled with the shackles of intentional 
sloth. 

To justify my use of the word " intentional/' let 
me turn once more to the record in the oft-quoted 
19 1 9 Report of the A. F. L. — or to its predeces- 
sors. I have already cited this Report (pages 451- 
454) t0 prove Labor's purpose to shorten working 
hours; the following will show its purpose to cut 
down production while at work, — in plain lan- 
guage, to loaf on the job. On page 121 Mr. Gompers 
reports success in retaining in the naval appropria- 
tion bill a provision against " so-called efficiency " 
— forbidding the study under the stop watch of 
work done by any employee. He had reported the 
same success in former Reports. 

The use of a stop watch at the General Electric 
Company's works at Lynn has just been the occa- 
sion (May 10, 1920) of a walkout of a number of 
workers, accompanied by threat of a general strike, 
to prevent the timekeepers from determining by the 
watch what should be a fair day's production in 
winding coils. This is a typical case. 

Returning to the Report, page 451, Resolution 
105 says, "a piece work basis is most objectionable 
. . . there can be no question that the proper 
method in Governmental departments is upon a 

[71] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

fixed price for certain hours of work." The same 
Resolution would forbid an idle man to put in his 
time on any work other than that of his own craft. 
He must rather do nothing at all. On page 468, 
Resolution No. 218 puts the Ingersoll Watch con- 
cern on the " unfair list " because of the " speed-up " 
system introduced by the firm for greater efficiency 
in production. This Resolution was introduced by 
the " Boycott Committee." 

These citations (a few only out of many) suffice 
to show the fixed policy of Organized Labor. You, 
gentlemen of the press, can judge of it by very super- 
ficial inquiry. For instance, just ask any middle- 
aged master plumber as to present and old-time 
efficiency of journeyman plumbers, most of whom 
are union men. He will tell you that they used to 
average fifteen to twenty wiped joints per day. Now 
they are restricted by union rules to one joint per 
hour — or say forty-four per week, as against ninety 
to one hundred and twenty per week in 1880. Is 
there anything to wonder at when the plumber com- 
plains, as he justly does, that his wages will not buy 
as much of this world's goods today as they used 
to do, while the unskilled, non-union laborers' wages 
will buy more than of old? Can a man who con- 
tributes less than half what he used to toward the 
common stock justly expect to take out of it even 
as much as before, to say nothing of taking out 
more? 

Can the reader wonder that every manufacturer 
is constantly putting in improved machinery to en- 
able free, unskilled common labor to take the place 
of skilled union labor, so long as the latter deliber- 
ately plans to baffle the best effort of the manufac- 
turer to increase output and lower cost? 

Of course that helps common labor! The Bible 

[72] 



GOSPEL OF SLOTH 

says "the wages of sin is death." The law of 
supply and demand, not quite so extreme but just 
as implacable as Holy Writ, decrees that the re- 
ward of sloth is poverty. The average man can- 
not accumulate fortune in perishable goods, because 
they perish, and because there is but just enough 
to go around; and but a few supermen can accumu- 
late wealth in imperishable goods, because what 
little there is by nature can accumulate only here 
and there. Who, then, shall the lucky ones be? 
Those who work or those who shirk? Justice and 
common sense and universal experience agree with 
the Constitution of the United States in awarding 
the fortune to the man that has the energy to work, 
and the thrift to save, and the brain to plan, and 
the courage to risk. That man is seldom a union 
laborer, though he not seldom has been one for a 
while. 

At this point the Bolshevist, the Socialist, the 
Collectivist, etc., come in to tell us that the United 
States, like the Creator, has constituted things all 
wrong; " but that is another story," as Kipling says. 
Just now we are considering Labor. Moreover, 
the Creator, in his infinite wisdom, has ordained 
that he who accumulates a fortune cannot benefit 
by it unless he puts it at work for the service of 
humanity in productive industry; in the course of 
which employment it must buy and pay for, year in 
and year out, large and larger quantities of that 
"human labor" which, fortunately for its owners and 
in spite of Mr. Gompers, is a mere and extremely 
salable " commodity of commerce." 

This is, it seems to me, in the divine scheme of 
this world's affairs, the reason for existence of the 
capitalist, the exceptional man of business; namely, 
to employ much labor and give many men the means 

[73] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

of useful and comfortable self-support. He may 
be, and from a business standpoint should be, selfish 
but just, demanding and giving value for value; and 
he cannot succeed without carrying upward with him 
many, many others. 

Can you not see, gentlemen of the press, that 
Capitalism, however selfish it may be, is intelligent, 
constructive? That its consistent purpose of expan- 
sion, of enlarged and cheapened production and 
distribution — because therein lies the greater re- 
ward — is for the benefit of the community also? 
Can you not, per contra, see that trades-unionism 
of the Gompers type, while just as selfish, is stupid, 
destructive? That its consistent purpose of block- 
ing expansion, of giving less and less to the com- 
munity while demanding from it more and more, is 
necessarily an injury to all, as well as a fatal blunder 
for itself? 

Is it not clear that Capitalism, doing with all its 
might greater service to the world, deserves and 
will always receive its greater dividend from the 
world? While Gompersism, holding back with all 
its might against service to the world, deserves 
and will inevitably receive only the beatings and 
the scanty fare, that always fall to the lot of "balky 
critters" that will not pull their load? 



[74] 



CHAPTER X 

IRRESPONSIBILITY OF LABOR 

One of the many difficulties, perhaps the greatest 
obstacle from the point of view of Capital, in deal- 
ing collectively with Organized Labor, is the finan- 
cial irresponsibility of the latter. 

The first question raised, when capitalist deals 
with capitalist, is that of responsibility. Each asks 
whether the other is good for his contract, whether 
it can be enforced at law. If not, there is " nothing 
doing" between the parties. 

When it comes to dealing with Labor, on the con- 
trary, the latter insists on carefully guarded irre- 
sponsibility; at least so far as refusal to incorporate 
legally goes to protect union funds from suit brought 
to enforce performance of union contracts. 

Of course it is none the less true, under the com- 
mon law, that the members of an unincorporated 
association, such as a labor union, are always per- 
sonally liable for all its obligations ; as indeed Labor 
found out to its sorrow in the case of Loewe vs. 
United Hatters of North America. But as in prac- 
tice it is a costly process, as well as doubtful of 
results, to sue a large number of laboring men indi- 
vidually, the union leaders, who employ clever law- 
yers, are well aware that such suits are seldom 
brought, and that meantime union funds can be made 
elusive and hard to reach under present conditions. 

If, on the contrary, the unions were incorporated, 
and complied with the laws intended to protect the 

[75.] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

creditors of corporations, it would be comparatively 
easy to reach and impound union money. 

Now, the one thing which union leaders reli- 
giously guard from the profanation of handling 
other than their own is union income and accumu- 
lated cash. It is in their eyes quite enough to return 
to their members a fifth or sixth part of their an- 
nual contributions in the shape of so-called benefits; 
and it is absolutely unthinkable to risk the remaining 
four fifths by putting it, or any accumulated rem- 
nant of it, up to guarantee performance of union 
contracts. 

For instance, in 1901 the United Hatters of North 
America demanded that Loewe & Co. of Danbury, 
Conn., should unionize their factory and establish 
the " closed shop." The latter refused. Then the 
Hatters called out Loewe's union men on strike, and 
declared a nation-wide boycott of hats made by the 
firm; causing to it heavy loss. The firm sued the 
Hatters for damages, and as they were not incorpo- 
rated, caused attachments to be levied upon 186 
homes and on sundry bank accounts owned by mem- 
bers of the union resident in Danbury. The United 
Hatters defended the suits, and entered into written 
agreement with the owners, assuming entire respon- 
sibility for the conduct of the suit, and the payment 
of any judgments obtained. 

After eleven years of litigation, in which the case 
was carried by the Hatters to the Supreme Court 
of the United States, judgment for over $250,000 
damages against them was finally affirmed in No- 
vember, 19 1 2. The American Federation of Labor 
had intervened in the suit, alleging a financial in- 
terest therein; and at its 1908 Convention pledged 
to the suffering owners of homes and bank accounts 
its financial aid: therefore the firm waited three 

[76] 



IRRESPONSIBILITY OF LABOR 

years for some proposition of payment from the 
unions, but finally collected from the banks, and 
started to sell the homes for the debt. Though it 
then would have taken an assessment of but ten cents 
per member of the A. F. L. to pay the judgment, 
principal and interest, the A. F. L. petitioned Con- 
gress that the Nation should pay it, on the ex- 
traordinary ground that the Sherman Law against 
combination and conspiracy was not meant to hit 
Organized Labor! Congress refused, for a wonder; 
but subsequently passed the Clayton Act, excepting 
Labor from the perils of the Sherman Law. The 
Federation then considered that it had discharged 
its obligation to the Danbury sufferers by procuring 
passage of an act that "precluded the possibility 
of any similar suit"; and for some time left the 
poor fellows to console themselves with Mr. Gom- 
pers' sympathy, quoted by the New York Times 
April 24, 1915, as follows: "I feel awfully with 
regard to how the men will take this when they lose 
their homes." 

Meantime, however, he and the Federation had 
come to the aid of the Los Angeles Times dyna- 
miters, and had easily raised a quarter of a million 
dollars to defend the McNamara gang in the crimi- 
nal courts. The difference in the two cases lay in 
the fact that the dynamiters were high officials in 
their unions; the Danbury victims mere rank and 
file — -who, as Mr. Gompers put it, "suffer for the 
movement." Eventually the United Hatters and 
the A. F. L. could no longer evade this obligation 
to the Danbury men, and they reluctantly paid the 
greater part of the judgment and costs. 

The question that naturally arises to the inquiring 
mind is, When will the rank and file open their eyes 
to see where their good money goes? When will 

[77] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

they contrast their own dividend from trades-union- 
ism with that of the 100,000 leaders who do not 
lose their homes or jobs, and are promptly cared 
for by their great machine ? When will they notice 
that strike benefits do not make good lost wages? 
(That is, if the Reports of the A. F. L. and the 
Department of Labor are to be trusted. In 19 18, 
for instance, the A. F. L. paid out " to sustain mem- 
bers on strike" the large sum of $1,474,380.79: 
but that came to only 13 cents per day per striker 
against lost wages of perhaps $4 per day. For the 
Department of Labor reported 1,102,418 men out 
for an average of 18 days; in 3 181 strikes, of which 
181 1 were called by the unions, or, say, 57 per cent. 
The union men must have lost, say, 1 1,312,000 days 
— or over $45,000,000 in wages, against $1,500,000 
or less, made up by the unions.) 

When will they see that sick and death benefits 
received are far less than their union dues invested 
in ordinary industrial insurance would yield? Most 
vital of all, when will they realize that union wages, 
under the union cult of sloth, lag, and always will 
lag, behind those of free labor, in comparison with 
cost of living? 

All these are the results of irresponsible unionism; 
irresponsible to law, to economics, to public opinion, 
and meanest of all, to its own faithful following. 



[78] 



CHAPTER XI 

ORGANIZED LABOR. POLITICAL EVOLUTION 
AND INTENTIONS 

Without attempting an exact history, Mr. Gom- 
pers' political program and ambitions are, I fancy, 
in evolution, broadening and heightening with the 
growth of the A. F. L. and his own continued suc- 
cess in trading with politicians in power. 

My first contact with Organized Labor as a semi- 
political affair was in Chicago, around 1900, when 
Labor seemed to have a "pull" with the city au- 
thorities that held back the hand of the police during 
labor disputes. The non-union man was pretty well 
terrorized in those days, as my own men informed 
me in 1903, when I put my factory under the pro- 
tection of an injunction of a local court, forbidding 
violence and abuse from pickets, in order that it 
might start work after a protracted strike. There 
had been many strikes and much slugging (with one 
or two fatalities) in Chicago, during three years 
previous, which finally came to such a point of vio- 
lence upon the public streets (in the teamsters' strike) 
that public opinion turned against the unions, and the 
police had to do their duty. Meantime two judges, 
Holdom and Chytraus, had been appealed to by em- 
ployers and had granted nearly an hundred injunc- 
tions against violence and sabotage. Their terms of 
office expired, and they came up for reelection in 
1904. Then the Federation of Labor, which claimed 
one hundred thousand members in Chicago, sent out 

[79] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

public notice to all union men to defeat Holdom and 
Chytraus, upon which the business interests of the 
city, though not very energetically, rallied to their 
support. Both were reelected, running, as my mem- 
ory goes, from nine thousand to fifteen thousand 
votes behind the leaders on the same ticket. It ap- 
peared at the time as though but nine to fifteen per 
cent of the alleged Labor vote was actually " de- 
livered" when called for by the Federation. Not 
long after, a conspicuous test of voting power was 
made when the Federation attempted to defeat the 
reelection of Congressman Littlefield, down in 
Maine. He too was reelected, the alleged Labor 
vote failing delivery. Gompers and the A. F. L. 
opposed Governor Coolidge last year on account of 
his action in the Boston police strike, which added 
fifty thousand votes to his unprecedented majority 
and overwhelming victory. He carried all the great 
labor centers of the State, unquestionably supported 
by the laboring men on the issue of law and order 
against trades-unionism. 

I doubt whether there are many other cases as 
clean-cut as the foregoing from which the weight of 
the Labor vote can be calculated; but whether in fact 
light or heavy, it counts for many tons with many 
Congressmen and local politicians. Local labor 
leaders naturally trade on the desire for or fear of 
the Labor vote, to get city jobs for union men, jack 
up city wage-scales, pull off the police from inter- 
ference with picket lines, etc., and usually find local 
politicians pliant. 

To return to my tale : as the American Federation 
grew larger and larger and larger, as the railway 
Brotherhoods expanded, as the United States courts 
and army were drawn into restraint of union actions 
(for instance, in the Debs railway strike of 1894), 

[80] 



A. F. L. POLITICAL INTENTION 

Mr. Gompers felt the need of national political 
"pull " as well as local. The Federation moved to 
Washington, where there are few employers but 
many politicians, built the "A. F. L. building" right 
alongside the war and navy departments, and is 
firmly and conspicuously planted there, able to shake 
the Labor vote at the President and Congress every 
day in the year. 

Of course there are always the thousands of local 
unions, city and' state federations, etc., to shake their 
local vote at Governors, Mayors, and members of 
the Legislatures in every state and city. Nor is 
their threat a light one to the average politician, who 
in ordinary years has no compelling issue in his plat- 
form upon which to stand; who has nothing to de- 
termine popular favor except a party label, or that 
he is a good fellow. It makes a lot of difference to 
such a politician if he can rely on the solid vote of 
the members of a good big local union. 

And in national elections — consider the possible 
vote of Organized Labor. Roosevelt's record plur- 
ality was around 2,585,000. Taft's was only 1,270,- 
000. Wilson's second election was but 582,000. 
If we grant Mr. Gompers' claim that there are today 
over four million organized workers, and assume 
that forty-five per cent of them are voters (as is 
the case with labor generally), there is a possible 
" Labor vote " of 1,800,000, which is far more than 
necessary to carry a presidential election if delivered 
solidly to either one of the two great parties, and 
not counterbalanced otherwise. 

Per contra, "Labor" is nowhere near big enough 
to constitute a victorious, independent Party. 

Hence Mr. Gompers' perfectly consistent and 
well-advised strategy not to organize a Labor party, 
not to put up Labor candidates, as such, but to bid 

[81] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

Labor play the part of a political prostitute, giving 
its favor to whatever candidate of whatever party 
promises most. Mr. Gompers' public manifesto of 
February 8, 1920, reads as follows: 

" The American labor movement finds it neces- 
sary vigorously to apply its long and well-established 
non-partisan political policy . . . Confronted by a 
succession of hostile Congresses, the A. F. L. in 
1906 announced its historic 'bill of grievances.' 
This was followed by a vigorous and successful non- 
partisan political campaign. In 1908, 19 10 and 
191 2 the same program was energetically applied. 
As a result, many of Labor's enemies in Congress 
were defeated and all of the essential legislation in 
'Labor's Bill of Grievances' of 1906 was enacted. 
. . . Organized Labor owes allegiance to no po- 
litical party . . . Wherever candidates for reelec- 
tion have been unfriendly to labor's interests they 
should be defeated and election of tried and true 
trades-unionists, or of assured friends, should be 
secured . . . whether for President, for Congress, 
for state legislatures or any other office . . . The 
time for vigorous and determined action is here." 

No fault can be found with Mr. Gompers and the 
A. F. L. for using the ballot to protect their con- 
stitutional rights, or to modify the Constitution in a 
constitutional way. That is what the ballot is for 
in a free country. It is the privilege and the duty 
of the rest of us, if we do not like what organized 
labor ballots for, to ballot ourselves against it, and 
defeat it if we can. We are bound, therefore, to 
inquire carefully just what labor wants of the Presi- 
dent, of Congress, and the Legislatures. Is it some 
constitutional right that it seeks to save, or some un- 
constitutional class advantage it is determined to 
force by threatening frightened Congressmen? 

[82] 



A. F. L. POLITICAL INTENTION 

To begin with, what Labor has already got by 
political activity, local and national, may be sum- 
marized as follows : 

i. For many years local police and military au- 
thorities have winked at violence and terrorism in 
labor disputes, and have only interfered to maintain 
law and order and protect life and property when 
popular indignation compelled so doing. Of late 
years the public by intensive experience has grown 
rather impatient of organized labor, and the poli- 
ticians in power are becoming quickly responsive in 
maintaining law and order. (In consequence Organ- 
ized Labor has lately sought to change the law and 
limit judicial power.) 

2. A number of years ago Labor obtained from 
Congress a law making eight hours a day's work in 
all government employment, and on all government 
contract work. This was the entering wedge, re- 
cently followed up by the Adamson Law of 191 6 
establishing the eight-hour day for railroad workers. 
A good many subsidiary eight-hour laws have been 
passed by different State and City Legislatures, I 
believe. 

3. Acts excluding oriental immigration, etc., have 
been passed, largely at the instance of Organized 
Labor. 

4. A Seaman's Act, allowing seamen to quit any 
time provided their ship is safe in port, instead of 
being bound to complete the voyage for which they 
shipped, has been passed. 

5. A Department of Labor was segregated from 
the old Department of Commerce and Labor, and 
a union man made Secretary of it under the present 
Administration. The Department is now pretty 
well "packed" with officials friendly to Mr. Gom- 
pers and his associates. 

[83] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

6. A number of child and female labor laws, 
workmen's compensation laws, inspection, sanitation, 
and safety appliance laws have been passed with 
Organized Labor's approval, or perhaps its initia- 
tive. I say perhaps, because none of these things 
were taken seriously enough by Organized Labor to 
cause the calling of one single strike in the twenty- 
five years from 1 88 1 to 1905 (see Report on Strikers 
and Lockouts of Committee of Labor), out of 
nearly thirty-seven thousand recorded by Carroll D. 
Wright. Since 1905 the Committee of Labor has 
not tabulated the statistics of about as many more 
strikes, nor brought this particular record down to 
date, but such as it is, the record indicates that phi- 
lanthropists and reformers passed those laws with- 
out especial pressure from Labor. Nobody opposed 
them seriously. 

7. Congress passed the Clayton Anti-Trust Law, 
including a declaration that human labor is not a 
commodity of commerce, and excepting labor and 
farmer combination from being held to be conspiracy 
in restraint of trade. 

This law is the crowning triumph of the political 
activities of Organized Labor in the United States 
(see Report, pages 197-410), the most far-reaching 
in its practical effect and intention, as triumphantly 
announced by Mr. Gompers, viz. : to deny to the em- 
ployer the protection of the courts, in advance, 
against the violence and abuse that usually breaks 
out along the picket lines established by Organized 
Labor in every strike. 

To explain the Act to the uninitiated, let me say 
that Organized Labor openly admits that a strike 
has poor chance of success unless a picket line is 
drawn to keep other workmen from taking the jobs 
vacated bv the strikers. The jobs are good enough 

[84] 



A. F. L. POLITICAL INTENTION 

and attractive enough to fetch plenty of men glad 
to fill them in a few days or weeks, if free play is 
allowed to that law of supply and demand which 
Mr. Gompers says does not exist. Indeed the 
strikers themselves are determined to hold on to 
the jobs, and have not the remotest idea of giving 
them up. They mean to save their cake and eat 
it too; to keep their jobs, but make the boss pay 
better than the wages that they were, and others are, 
glad enough to take. The only way to do this is to 
keep those others away, by persuasion — or, if it 
comes to that, by force. So the picket line is drawn 
around the job. 

Naturally the employer is indignant, and the non- 
union workers who want work are indignant. Both 
protest that this is a free country, and the public 
streets are free to every man; that the employer has 
a right to offer and the non-union man a right to 
accept such work and wages as they choose, under 
lawful conditions. When the non-union man finds 
his way barred by the pickets, talk gets hot, and 
blows follow. Likewise the picket line often turns 
back coal, material, etc., on its way to the employer. 
There can be no question whatever that the con- 
stitutional right of both employer and non-union 
seeker of employment to " life, liberty, and the pur- 
suit of happiness," — i.e. of any lawful business — 
is deliberately trampled on by a combination of union 
men in restraint of trade. 

The union leaders say: " Very well, what of it? 
If we break the law, let us be tried by a jury of our 
peers, and punished for it. Of course we do not 
admit any intent to break the law. It may be that 
foolish men sometimes get angry; that is an incident 
of industrial warfare, nothing more." 

The employer answers : " Doubtless you are will- 
[85] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

ing to take the chances of a jury trial two or three 
months hence for slugging our workmen today; you 
feel pretty sure that your experienced lawyers will 
get your men off cheap enough. But how about the 
non-union men who are hurt meantime, while pass- 
ing along the public streets; will a verdict against 
sluggers cure their injuries? How about my busi- 
ness irreparably damaged, sales and output lost for- 
ever? I must appeal to the courts for protection 
in advance — maintenance of law and order; I 
cannot wait till the mischief has been done beyond 
repair, and then appeal to the courts for punishment, 
useless when inflicted." 

So the employer goes to the court and the judge 
grants an injunction against breach of law. Then, 
when a union picket proceeds to " knock the block 
of " a non-union man, or to throw a monkey wrench 
into a fast running machine, he is haled before the 
judge instantly, and sentenced by the judge — no 
packed jury to appeal to — for contempt of the in- 
junction order of the court. The proceeding is 
summary and effective, and generally stops violence. 
The streets are opened once more, the natural flow 
of labor and material under law and order is re- 
sumed, business goes on, and the strike fails! 

The reader will observe that mere maintenance of 
law and order — as enforced last fall by General 
Wood at Gary during the steel strike — causes the 
strike to fail. Therefore Mr. Gompers accuses the 
judges, whose sworn duty it is to maintain law and 
order, of acting as " strike breakers," of being owned 
by and subservient to the capitalistic class. That is 
why he procured the passage of the Clayton Act, in- 
tended to permit labor to coerce capital without fear 
of injunctions. 

8. President Wilson embodied in the Peace 
[86] 



A. F. L. POLITICAL INTENTION 

Treaty formulated in Paris in 19 19 the following 
principles : 

That labor is not a commodity of commerce. 

The right to organize. 

A reasonable living wage. 

An eight-hour day and six-day week. 

No child labor. 

Equal pay for women and men, same work. 

Equitable economic standards everywhere. 

Provisions were made for an International Labor 
Bureau of the League of Nations. The defeat of 
the Treaty in the Senate has brought this effort to 
naught as far as we are concerned. 

The foregoing list comprises the major accom- 
plishments of Organized Labor's political activity 
up to date. It continues in intensified degree, though 
against increasing public opposition, with the follow- 
ing more or less distinctly defined purposes in view, 
namely — 

For: 

1. Unlimited right to organize, even in government 

service. 

2. Unlimited right to strike, even against public welfare. 

3. Unlimited right to collective bargaining; that is, em- 

ployers must recognize and deal with unions, not 
with individuals. No " open shop." 

4. Government ownership of railroad and other utilities. 

(Report, page 126.) 

5. Government housing. 

6. Government contribution to education. (Report, 

page 129.) 

7. Government works to prevent unemployment. 

8. Government monopoly of Employment Bureau 

service. (Report, page 123.) 

9. Abolishing power of state and national supreme courts 

[87] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

to declare laws unconstitutional. (Report, pages 

74. 97. 99-) 
10. Limiting power of judges to grant injunctions, so 
that Labor may break the law first and take the 
consequences of punishment by jury trial after- 
wards. 
ii. Initiative and referendum. (Report, pages 99, 199.) 
12. Minimum wage and shorter work day. (Report, 
pages 113, 115.) 

Against: 

Every form of legal control or responsibility of Organ- 
ized Labor, such as: 

13. Compulsory arbitration or industrial courts. 

14. Prohibition of police or other strikes. 

15. Collective liability of unions for collective 

bargains or acts of union members. 

16. Compulsory military training. 

17. Large regular army. Voluntary militia preferred. 

18. Use of soldiers for police duty during strikes. 

19. Public sale of products of convict labor. 

20. Efficiency systems in government work. 

21. Fixing wages or rules for government employees by 

law. 

22. Every law intended to bring employers and employees 

into direct friendly contact, without intervention 
of Organized Labor. 

Examination of these openly announced political 
purposes or policies of Organized Labor shows that 
they fall under the following general classification: 

Numbers 1, 2, 3, 8, 13, 14, 21, and 22 are intended to per- 
petuate under the sanction of law the present cen- 
tralized control of labor in the Federation and the 
Brotherhoods, with the monopoly of work and coercion of 
employers once considered conspiracy and breach of law. 

Numbers 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 19, and 20 contemplate raids on 
the public purse for the benefit of Labor. 
[88] 



A. F. L. POLITICAL INTENTION 

Numbers u and 17, and especially number 9, are attacks 
on the guarantees of the Constitution, on representative 
government, and the power of government to enforce law, 
in the interest of demagogy, pure and simple, and the 
removal of all restraint from the great machine controlled 
by Mr. Gompers. 

Number 15 perpetuates the irresponsibility of Labor. 

Number 16 seems intended to avoid performance of public 
duty. 

Number 10 and number 18 are intended to prevent the 
maintenance of law and order during strikes. 

I urge your most careful consideration of the fore- 
going analysis of the political program of Organized 
Labor, gentlemen of the press, and ask you seriously 
whether it ought not to be repudiated in toto by 
every American who loves his country. Every line 
of it seems to me dictated by the most intense selfish- 
ness, by determination to concentrate and perpetuate 
personal control of industry and the state in the 
hands of labor demagogues, under the pretense of 
democracy. 

Well, so far 19 19 and 1920 have been Mr. Gom- 
pers' bad years. His big strikes have failed, the 
people are getting tired of the mischief he makes, 
the Administration has gone back on him ; neverthe- 
less, driven to bay with his back to the wall, he does 
not yield an inch, but makes the fight of his life. It 
is the psychological moment to beat him at the polls. 

That is what the people have already done in 
England and France, backing up the Administrations 
there that have at last had the good sense and the 
courage to call a halt on the holding-up of national 
life by Organized Labor. Let me repeat the old 
German proverb : 

" Things are so ordained that the trees do not 
grow into the heavens." 

[89] 



CHAPTER XII 

CLARIFYING STUDIES. SOCIAL JUSTICE. 
MORAL BASIS OF CAPITALISM 

Before going to the polls, and while Gompers and 
the politicians are making up the form in which the 
labor issue shall present itself, it is as well to study 
for ourselves a little in advance, and to distill what 
Lowell called the "clarified residuum of thought," 
as to essentials which are certain to underlie that 
issue, when presented. 

Unquestionably the most powerful appeal to the 
conscience of the average American man or woman 
made by Labor is that for " Social Justice." We all 
want it. Ten thousand preachers, reformers, charity 
workers; twenty thousand press and other writers; 
a hundred thousand demagogues, none of whom 
ever offer a job to a workingman; some statesmen 
— even men so totally different, as Roosevelt, Taft, 
and Woodrow Wilson — have thundered for years 
at Rockefeller, Gary, and Armour as malefactors 
of great wealth, commanding them to do " Social 
Justice"; yet never does any single one of these 
orators — so far as I have been able to learn (even 
Roosevelt) — attempt to find out or to define just 
what " Social Justice " actually is, or to make sure 
that as a matter of fact it is not already ordi- 
narily done, everywhere and always, under the 
operation of forces far stronger than human kind- 
ness or human greed. Perhaps the blindest guide 
of all those who bind great burdens and lay them 

[90] 



SOCIAL JUSTICE 

on other men's shoulders is President Wilson. His 
Labor message to Congress last fall says, "To an- 
alyze the particulars in the demands of labor is to 
admit the justice of their complaint " ; and then goes 
on for some two thousand words carefully to avoid 
analysis, and shun particulars, in a peculiarly Wil- 
sonian and rainbowy fog of generalities which in- 
clude justice to Labor and protection of Capital, 
also defense of the whole people against the chal- 
lenge of any class. Not one concrete fact from him 
or any of the orators. Clearly it is up to us to in- 
quire for ourselves just what Labor does not get 
out of this world that it is justly entitled to, and 
what Capital does get that it does not earn; in short, 
just what Social Justice is. 

Fortunately, this practical, unimaginative country 
of ours recently compiled for income taxation fairly 
exact information as to what " Capital" gets out of 
us all; which, with statistics from the Census Office, 
enables us to make a pretty shrewd guess at the 
actual "divide" between Labor and Capital, real- 
ized under existing constitutional rights of private 
property and the operation of natural economic law. 
After digesting this information we can then go 
on to ask whether any better basis for Social Jus- 
tice can be devised by Congress than now exists in 
our old familiar equality before the law; in every 
man's inalienable right to "life, liberty, and the 
pursuit of happiness." We can ask whether even 
a Wilsonian administration can guarantee to every 
man more than the pursuit — say nothing of the 
attainment — of rainbows. 

The year 19 17 was one of the most extraordi- 
narily active and prosperous years for American 
industry ever known, though not so good as 19 16. 
War stimulus was speeding up every shaft in the 

[91] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

land, and war taxation had not yet laid its heaviest 
hand upon the corporations. The Commissioner of 
Internal Revenue has lately published the " Statistics 
of Income" of 351,426 corporations from income 
tax returns for 1917, 232,079 of which netted a 
profit, and 1 19,347 netted a loss, for the year. All 
of them together paid out of each $100 of gross 
income the following: 

Gross Income $100.00 

Cost of goods, mat'l and mfg. labor . . $51.59 

Labor other than mfg $7-72) 

Salaries 1.42 ) 9 ' 34 

Miscellaneous overhead cost (not labor) 21.41 

Interest 2.54 

Depreciation 1.97 

Local taxes 1.24 

United States taxes 2.52 90.61 

Balance remaining, profit $9-39 

These "Statistics of Income" do not analyze the 
cost of goods to show how much of the $51.59 re- 
ported is for labor and how much for material; but 
it would probably be not far from right to assume 
the usual ratio of fifty-fifty, or $25.79 eacn (°f 
course, a large part of the cost of material also was 
originally for labor). If we add the $9.34 reported 
for other labor and salaries, we reach a total of 
$35.13 cost of labor out of $90.61 total paid out 
for every $100 taken in by all great American em- 
ployers, by Capital. 

The reader will note how small a part of the total 
cost of production was contributed by human beings 
in the form of work, — less than forty per cent. 
That is, Labor contributed a shade less than four 
tenths of the cost of production, while Capital contrib- 
uted the remaining six tenths. For its contribution 

[92] 



SOCIAL JUSTICE 

Labor drew $35.13. Meantime for advancing 
the whole $90.61 paid out for labor and every- 
thing else, and for finding the money invested in 
plant, equipment, and inventories, taking all the risk 
and doing all the work of creating and managing the 
project, Capital received as net return the sum of 
$9.39, or a little over one fourth the amount Labor 
got. In other words, Capital found the money, took 
the risk, created the business, contributed six tenths 
of the total cost of production and distribution, and 
received as its reward one quarter the amount re- 
ceived by Labor for finding no money, taking no 
risk, creating no business, and contributing but four 
tenths of the cost. Furthermore, Capital got the 
last $9.39 left of the $100 taken in at the end, while 
Labor always got the first $35.13 paid out at the 
beginning. In fact in most states Labor is a pre- 
ferred creditor; has the position of advantage over 
everybody — a first lien on all Capital for its com- 
pensation. 

Nay, more ; as five per cent has for long genera- 
tions been regarded as a reasonable return for the 
mere use of money so amply secured as to involve 
no risk, only the difference between that figure and 
$9.39 actually realized by Capital as above — or, if 
we assume an annual turnover equal to capital in- 
vested, a reasonable assumption, $4.39 out of every 
$100 gross income — can justly be considered as the 
reward of those who find the capital and create the 
enterprise, for their risk, energy, and ability — call 
it, if you please, their work — as against $35.13 paid 
Labor for its work; and this in a most extraordi- 
narily prosperous year for American industry, in 
which, nevertheless, one corporation out of every 
three reported a deficit instead of a profit. 

Granting that Capital and Labor are partners 

[93] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

equally indispensable, that neither can get along 
without the other, why in the name of Social Justice 
should that partner who contributes the virtues of 
thrift, courage, management, and work be asked to 
divide with the other partner, who contributes noth- 
ing but work, on any basis more favorable to the 
latter than the present ration of $4.39 to $35.13? 
If that is the ratio in a year of extraordinary profit, 
how can Capital risk the attempt hereafter to take 
less and give Labor more; or what probability is 
there that Capital will do so, in view of the cer- 
tainty of bad years to come? Ever since the date 
of Pharaoh's dream of nearly three thousand years 
ago, of the seven fat kine and the seven lean kine, — 
the seven years of plenty followed by seven years of 
famine, — it has been in order, and probably was 
long before, for Capital to look ahead to periods 
of bad business, and take precautions to keep itself, 
and incidentally Labor, alive through hard times as 
well as good. That is its duty; and it can do Labor 
no greater kindness or larger Social Justice. 

Is not the above statement fair? Do not you, 
gentlemen of the press, realize how narrow the 
margin always is? Do you not perceive that under 
operation of the law of supply and demand the work- 
ingman always gets out of the world substantially 
all that he puts into it — collectively considered, that 
is, with the individual variations common to all 
human affairs? Can you not grasp the significance 
of the extraordinary revelation of modern industry 
as a whole afforded us by this snapshot taken by the 
Income Tax Collector of business in full stride? 
Does it not photograph itself on your minds that 
that little $4.39 out of every $100 income is the 
entire target at which Bolshevist, Socialist, Labor 
demagogue, and politicians, so fiercely are shoot- 

[94] 



SOCIAL JUSTICE 

ing! How small it is! Heaven knows what fat liv- 
ing they all expect to get out of it! They do not 
know themselves, and are mighty careful not to try 
to find out — only to roar promises to stop "profit- 
eering," and give it all to labor, or the proletariat, 
to the "People." 

What will there be to give to the " People " if we 
do stop "profiteering," gentlemen? What do the 
people get in Darkest Africa, where there never was 
any profiteering; or in Russia today, where they 
have just stopped it? Will you not look at the 
world as it always has been and actually is, read 
history, and recognize that a nation's profiteers are 
among its greatest assets: vital to its prosperity? 
Will you not remember that where there is no profit- 
eering there is no capital; and where there is no 
capital there are none but beggars; and where there 
are none but beggars, there is also nothing to beg? 

Let us check up these Income Tax analyses by 
studying some New York World Almanac figures for 
19 19 compiled from various governmental sources: 

Total population, 1919 $106,736,461 

Workers in industries named below say . 32,000,000 
Workers in transportation and distribu- 
tion say 18,500,000 

Value of manufactured products of U. S. $24,246,000,000 

Value of farm products 21,386.000,000 

Value of mineral and quarry products . . 5,739,000,000 

Value of forest products 792,000,000 

$52,163,000,000 
Cost transportation and distribution esti- 
mated at 37.5 per cent 19,560,000,000 

Total value of products distributed . $71,723,000,000 

[95] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

The above total value, say seventy-two billion 
dollars, divided by the total working population, 
something over fifty million workers, averages about 
$1440 per worker as his entire product for 1919. 
If we allow three hundred working days in the year, 
each man produced value of about $4.80 per diem, 
or for an eight-hour day 60 cents an hour. 

Now it is common knowledge that common, un- 
skilled labor has been and is now being paid 45 to 
50 cents an hour, and all sorts of skilled labor any- 
where from 75 cents to $1 an hour. Is it not evi- 
dent that, taking labor as a whole, here in America 
at least, it is already receiving and consuming by 
far the larger part of the value it helps to create? 
Where was the sound basis for Mr. Roosevelt's 
slogans of the "Square Deal" and "Social Justice," 
upon which was largely founded his — to me never 
very convincing — appeal to men of heart and con- 
science that resulted in the formation of the late 
Progressive Party? As a matter of fact it never 
existed, broadly speaking. And where does Mr. 
Gompers expect to get the " more, more, more " 
that he demands for Labor? As the old farmer 
adage has it: "You cannot get milk from a dry 
cow." If Labor in this country, assisted by Capital 
and brains, is producing total value of 60 cents per 
hour, and drawing from 45 cents to $1 per hour 
wages, two things are positively certain — first, that 
labor generally is not being robbed, or even " ex- 
ploited," by capital; and second, that its only way 
to get "more, more, more" is to produce more, more, 
more. When Mr. Gompers instigates his followers 
to produce less, less, less, he is simply their worst 
enemy. 

Let us verify this from yet other statistics. The 
Census Bureau made an unofficial estimate of the 

[96] 



SOCIAL JUSTICE 

wealth of the United States, Dec. 31, 19 17, as 220,- 
000 million dollars; the Department of Commerce 
the same year estimated 228,000 millions. The 
population was estimated at 103 millions. Our 
wealth, therefore, averaged say $2213 for every 
man, woman, and child; and if we accept the roll 
made by the Selective Draft Bureau in 19 17 of 
48,282,911 workers, and call it now, including natu- 
ral increase, 50 millions in 19 19, our wealth aver- 
ages $4560 per worker. That sum would be each 
wageworker's fortune, man or woman, if President 
Gompers were to take everything — land, buildings, 
plants, railroads, food, clothing, automobiles, and 
hard cash — and divide all equally among Rocke- 
feller, Morgan, himself, and the rest of us. 

Now let us suppose, though by no means certain, 
that when thus divided each man's fortune would 
earn him the fair dividend of six per cent on his 
$4560, or $273.60 per annum. That would come 
to 90 cents a day for each worker in addition to the 
wage he gets now, reserving nothing whatever for 
capital; that is, if we assume, which we have every 
reason to doubt, that our national capital, if divided 
up as above, and no longer managed by captains of 
industry for their own benefit, would yield the 90 
cents per day, the six per cent in question — as to 
which more hereafter. 

How far, gentlemen of the press, and may I add 
also, gentlemen of the pulpit, the forum, and the 
soap box — ■ how far would 90 cents a day go to 
satisfy Mr. Gompers' "more, more, more for 
Labor"? Why, as I write (April 12, 1920), the 
railway switchmen, freight handlers, clerks, etc., 
are breaking loose from his organizations on an 
"outlaw" strike, demanding from $1.60 to $2.40 
a day increase of pay. I have heard talk even of 

[97 I 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

the following Labor slogan: " Five hours and five 
dollars a day, five days a week." 

While clarifying our thought, however, let us not 
make the mistake of assuming that Mr. Gompers 
wants merely an " even divide." The only way his 
Organized Labor can earn u more, more, more," 
while producing less, less, less, is to remain as it 
is now: a compact, predatory minority; holding up 
the majority by strikes in strategic industries, such 
as coal, railroad, etc., for more than its fair share! 
The 228,000 millions of our wealth, which I as- 
sumed above for the sake of argument to divide 
equally, does not to any great extent belong to Wall 
Street. Over 100,000 millions of it was in land, 
farms, and homes owned by good plain American 
citizens everywhere; another 50,000 millions was in 
goods, live stock, food, clothing, furniture, and was 
also scattered broadcast, bearing no coupons, yield- 
ing no income. If we leave out of consideration the 
land, which was not made by us, the remaining 128,- 
000 millions of our wealth, which we did produce, 
totals all we have accumulated since Columbus dis- 
covered our country — all that is left to us out of an 
output now 62,602 millions of dollars a year. That 
is to say, our entire savings from the foundation of 
the American Republic to date are just about two 
years' present receipts. Since 1900 we have gained 
in wealth about 99,222 millions, or an average of 
5222 millions a year from an average population 
of ninety-one and a half millions. We put by but 
$57 apiece annually. 

Once more, gentlemen of the press and the pulpit: 
do you grasp the significance of the figures as throw- 
ing light on the question whether "Social Justice" 
has been done? If we assume the same proportion 
(47 per cent of workers to total population) as in 

[98] 



SOCIAL JUSTICE 

1919 for the nineteen years just preceding, then of 
the ninety-one and a half millions average popula- 
tion for that period some forty-four millions were 
workers; and the above saving of 5222 millions 
averaged $119 apiece. Allowing three hundred 
working days in the year, our accumulated wealth 
for that period comes to less than 40 cents per 
worker per day. 

You will probably admit, gentlemen, that during 
the last nineteen years our workers (who produced 
$4.80 per day in 1919) must have produced an aver- 
age Value of at least $3 per day per worker, taking 
men and women together. If so, since the 40 cents 
per day was all that accumulated in the shape of 
capital, we must necessarily have spent the rest, or 
an average of $2.60 per day. That is, we spent 
87 per cent, and somebody, including the wicked 
Wall Streeters, saved as capital 13 per cent of our 
gross income. But we must bear in mind that a 
very considerable part of that 13 per cent saved still 
belongs to Labor. There were in 19 19 no fewer 
than 11,400,000 savings banks depositors, and away 
back in 19 10 even there were 17,805,000 dwellings 
and 6,717,000 farms — most of them small, owned 
by workers. 

While it is difficult in making up so rough and 
sketchy an outline of so very large a subject to 
draw exact conclusions, it is my own conviction 
from this and former studies along parallel lines 
that laborers — the wageworkers in general, those 
for whom "Social Justice" is demanded — actually 
receive, and nine tenths of them actually spend, 
somewhere from 90 to 95 per cent of all we pro- 
duce. About one tenth of them save something, and 
help to accumulate the nation's capital. I do not 
believe our nation as a whole saves more than five 

[99] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

per cent of its annual turnover; but whatever we do 
save in the shape of bank deposits, whoever owns 
them, is invested by modern finance in modern in- 
dustry and distribution, to the conspicuous benefit 
of our own laboring classes as wageworkers. 

The recent years of war activity have caused an 
intensive development of industry and an apparent 
augmentation of capital, the real worth and solidity 
of which cannot certainly be told before commerce 
comes back to normal once more. Leaving these 
feverish years out, for the purpose of this discus- 
sion, I doubt whether normal accumulation of wealth 
exceeds five per cent, as guessed above. The other 
ninety-five per cent, as I see it, is distributed by the 
cold and impartial law of supply and demand from 
day to day and week to week with evenhanded 
" Social Justice," that is to say, to each worker, large 
or small, strong or feeble, fast or slow, in propor- 
tion to the service he individually renders to the com- 
munity in return for his own daily contribution to 
the common welfare. 

If he is but one of many thousands of working- 
men doing each some obscure part of the vast work 
of a great employer, his personal contribution is 
comparatively slight, and often quite useless with- 
out the contributions of hundreds of his fellows. 
His individual reward, though labor in the aggre- 
gate must first and last receive as above 95 per cent 
of the total value it helps to create, is necessarily 
small compared with that of the great organizer, 
who coordinates hundreds or thousands of like con- 
tributions into one great river of service to mankind. 
Consider Rockefeller, for instance, whose tank 
wagons bring kerosene oil to every farmer's door 
on the remotest back-country road. Rockefeller him- 
self, the creator and maintainer of that service to 

[100] 



SOCIAL JUSTICE 

the farmer, is justly entitled to this last five per cent 
(if indeed he gets that much) of the cash paid by 
the farmer for his gallon of kerosene, after having 
paid out in advance ninety-five per cent thereof for 
cost of production and distribution, all the way from 
the bowels of the earth in Oklahoma to the farm- 
house in Maine or Australia. Without Rocke- 
feller all the thousands of workmen of the Standard 
Oil would never have done that service to the 
farmer; without Swift and Armour all the packing- 
house butchers in Chicago would never have laid 
down a pouncl of bacon at the battle front in France. 

Is not this the truth? In all history, in every in- 
dustry, brains has always been, always will be, and 
ought to be, the great profiteer. Without brains, 
without management, neither Capital nor Labor re- 
ceives its fair reward. Neither of them deserves, 
and neither of them ever receives, the measure of 
reward earned by brains. Hence Rockefeller, and 
Armour, and Ford; and also Abraham and Solomon 
in their day — all of them, rightly, profiteers. 

Or consider the case of another who might be 
called one of the great modern profiteers — 'Mary 
Pickford. By means of the great machinery built 
up by the " movie " men, Mary's pretty smile is said 
to please some eight hundred thousand people every 
day in the United States alone. She is said to realize 
a million dollars a year income, or three thousand 
dollars a day out of the situation. That would be 
about three eighths of a cent from each person to 
whom she gives pleasure, out of the perhaps fifteen 
cents on the average paid by all at the box office. 
In the aggregate she takes a colossal sum out of the 
pockets of the "People"; but does she not deserve 
it? Does not each one of them get the pleasure, the 
human service, expected from Mary, well "worth 

[ioi] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

the price of admission," all of it? Would there be 
any social justice in depriving her, by law or other- 
wise, of her minute reward from each and every 
one? I have never heard any one suggest such a 
thing; and I doubt if any one ever thought of it, 
except myself, in this search for an illustration of 
the just reward for social service. Yet it is precisely 
as socially unjust to deprive Rockefeller of his frac- 
tion of a cent per gallon, or Armour of his fraction 
of a cent per pound of beef, merely because one or 
other of them has created the machinery to serve 
many million people. When Mary was a little un- 
known actress on a single stage of an old-style theater 
her smile was just as pretty, I suppose; yet it could 
reach but a few hundred people, and cost them, say, 
$i apiece. Now eight hundred thousand enjoy it at 
15 cents apiece. Does she not deserve her reward 
from each one just the same, or even more? Though 
much of her work is mere trashy sentimentality, and 
though many regard the " movie shows" as on the 
whole demoralizing and wasteful of great opportun- 
ity, do not the " movie " magnates deserve their re- 
ward also when they bring harmless pleasure into the 
lives of hard-working men and women? 

Not only are the great employers, financiers, and 
captains of industry entitled in all social justice to 
the minute reward they get from each of these they 
serve, but they equally deserve their reward from 
those they employ, to whom they offer, in competi- 
tion with others, an opportunity to earn an honest 
livelihood. Whether we pretend with Karl Marx 
that employers steal from their laborers the surplus 
value created by them, or tell the truth, viz., that 
they collect from their customers the cost of service 
plus their own reward for rendering it, either way 
they cause each to serve the other, and are entitled 

[102] 



SOCIAL JUSTICE 

to reward from every one of both elements in So- 
ciety. It is the unchanging law of trade that as the 
groups served grow larger the reward from each 
member for service rendered grows smaller. Never- 
theless in the aggregate it is huge, and it is justly 
deserved. Social Justice' is done! 

I do not mean to say that in the endless flux of 
individual circumstance and trade conditions fre- 
quent cases of personal misfortune, bad faith, wrong 
and injustice, do not occur. They are bound to occur 
in the nature of human frailty. But no political in- 
stitution in all history has actually gone so far to 
even up chances between man and man, and to open 
a vista of prosperity to us all, as the individual lib- 
erty and property right guaranteed by the Constitu- 
tion of the United States. 

In fine, I believe that entirely free and untram- 
meled operation of the law of supply and demand is 
the nearest human approximation to " Social Jus- 
tice," as the colossal failure, here and abroad, one 
after the other, of recent bureaucratic attempts to 
fix fair wages, prices, distribution, and production 
of commodities has most abundantly shown. My 
profound conviction is that the less political med- 
dling there is the greater social justice! We have 
become the most prosperous people on earth, from 
top to bottom of the social scale, by letting able men 
make large fortunes. We ought to keep our system 
going as it has been, until at least something that 
gives better results has been shown us. 



[103] 



CHAPTER XIII 

FURTHER CLARIFICATION. MENACE OF CEN- 
TRALIZED LABOR CONTROL 

There can be no doubt that the country perceives 
clearly enough that these giant strike machines are a 
menace to a free people; that in the very nature of 
modern life a few laborers who man the switches, 
valves, and tracks of our great utilities, the terminals 
of our railroads, our coal mines, police forces, hos- 
pitals, etc., can inflict unbearable disaster on us all 
by quitting work all at once. Day by day the talk 
grows louder and louder that the community has 
the right, nay more, the duty, certainly the power, 
to protect itself. Nevertheless, in our jealousy of 
the individual liberty of the free American citizen, 
in our sympathy with the poor workingman as 
against the rich corporation, in our anxiety to do 
" Social Justice," we hesitate to do our duty and 
exert our power. 

Meantime, Mr. Gompers thunders out the defiant 
assertion of the right to organize, the right to strike, 
and the right to bargain collectively; denounces as 
compelling " involuntary servitude any law for- 
bidding railway strikes; declares un-American and 
undemocratic laws forbidding the formation of 
unions affiliated with the A. F. L. among government 
or municipal employees. 

Governor Coolidge quietly rejoins to Gompers' 
fulminations, that "there is no right to strike 

[104] 



MISCHIEF OF CENTRALIZATION 

against the public safety, by anybody, any place, any 
time," a shot that hits the bull's-eye. 

The issue is joined, and in meeting it we clearly 
need further clarification of ideas. Washington dis- 
patches of April ii say that the Republican Na- 
tional Committee has submitted a " questionnaire " 
to Mr. Gompers to ask his orders, or perhaps his 
objects, in entering the campaign of 1920. Here 
they are as he gives them : 

A forty-four-hour week (perhaps forty-eight). 

The right to organize, even government employees and 
teachers. * 

Exemption of labor from anti Trust laws. 

Right of employees to bargain through outsiders, not co- 
employees. 

The right to strike, even against public welfare. 

Abolition of injunctions in labor disputes. 

Free United States Government Employment Agencies, 
presumably monopolies, in whose management Labor 
shall have a voice. 

Wages raised to point obviating need of pensions, etc. 

Equal pay for equal work of man or woman. 

No child labor below sixteen years of age. 

Elimination of employers' welfare and uplift work, mo- 
nopoly of such work by labor organizations. 

Opposition to Kansas Industrial Court as " antidemo- 
cratic." 

Legalization of the sympathetic strike. 

Legalization of the boycott, as last resort. 

Of these objects, the forty-four-hour week, wages 
obviating pensions, etc., and no child labor need no 
particular discussion here; but the others are vitally 
interesting. If attained they will continue that huge, 
rich, irresponsible, centralized labor autocracy which 
Mr. Gompers now dominates, and is determined to 
perpetuate through the ballot by election of subser- 

[105] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

vient Congressmen. It is time to wake up, open our 
eyes, understand him, and beat him at the polls. 

To begin with, most of us have carelessly and 
sympathetically interpreted his demand, " the right 
to organize," as meaning merely, that a lot of poor 
fellows hired by the day by a rich employer, subject 
to discharge without notice, with or without reason, 
ought to be allowed to get together for their own 
benefit and say to their employer: " It is one out, all 
out, with us. We have talked our jobs over with 
each other, and if you cannot change them to suit 
us we will all quit at once. If you can stand it we 
can. We are not satisfied as we are." 

Thus interpreted, we have said: "That is perfectly 
fair. The employer can drop men without notice; 
singly they would have little chance against him; 
acting together the balance is more even." 

But Gompers' " right to organize " means much 
more than a mere union of employees of one em- 
ployer spontaneously associating themselves for 
"collective bargaining" with that employer. 

Here is, let us say, a factory force of men who 
have never been " organized," who have come vol- 
untarily one by one to accept jobs from the same 
employer because they were individually satisfied 
with work and wages offered. Seeing them thus hap- 
pily and busily employed, Mr. Gompers, or one of 
his lieutenants, says to himself: "Here are five hun- 
dred men who are not paying union dues. Let us 
organize them." So he sends well-paid organizers, 

— his unions have plenty of money, — one for each 
craft employed; let us say one for the carpenters, 
one for the blacksmiths, one for the machinists, 

— to invite each workman to join a local union of 
his own craft whose existing members work for the 
most part in other shops. There may easily be five 

[106] 



MISCHIEF OF CENTRALIZATION 

or ten unions that take part in unionizing this shop, 
each of which is affiliated with a national organiza- 
tion of like unions, which in turn is tied into the 
American Federation of Labor. The local unions 
are also sub-federated into state and city Federations. 

In consequence, the unlucky shop thus organized 
finds its labor troubles tied and cross-tied, tangled 
and cross-tangled, into those of a perfectly indefinite 
number of other shops, trades, and localities, with 
ramifications which no man can possibly forecast; 
yet always, " Bunty pulls the strings," all of which 
lead back into one central, powerful, and irrespon- 
sible grip, that of the master of the A. F. L. 

Next comes the "demand" for "collective bar- 
gaining " ; that the employer shall modify his existing 
offer of work, wages, and conditions, whether or not 
it suits his will or pocket to do so, in order to remove 
" grievances " oftentimes formulated quite outside 
his own shop or force ; that he shall deal with men 
foreign to his employ and be controlled by conditions 
over which he has no control; that he shall "recog- 
nize" the union, and ignore or discharge old em- 
ployees who do not choose to join it, or be punished 
by a strike ; that whether he will or no, he shall deal 
not with individuals as before, but with a collectivity, 
whose orders (and not his) the man who takes his 
money shall obey. 

I submit to you, gentlemen of the press, that 
not in good conscience, in law, or in constitutional 
guarantees, can there be found any warrant for 
stretching the so far unquestioned right of the in- 
dividual, free, American workman to unite with his 
co-employees in peaceful refusal to continue work, 
or accept wages offered by his own employer, into the 
right of outsiders — say Mr. Gompers with his huge 
and immensely wealthy strike machine — to spend 

[107] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

millions in organizing all labor, in all employments, 
into one great Prussian army, strategically disposed 
to coerce single employers, one by one, or at will to 
paralyze whole industries, even the life of the nation; 
by the local, or regional, or general strike, original 
or sympathetic, or by the boycott, involving countless 
innocent sufferers in no way parties to the dispute. 

Yet just this absolute, centralized, irresponsible 
power, to starve, freeze, rob us all and singular; 
"the right to strike against the public safety," as 
Governor Coolidge puts it. is precisely what Mr. 
Gompers openly demands of the Republican Na- 
tional Committee in reply to inquiry. " The right 
to organize'' means to Gompers nothing less than 
the centralized autocracy of the Federation of 
Labor, with which, according to Gompers' closing 
words (on page 474 of the Report), the railway 
Brotherhoods now affiliate. ki Exemption from anti- 
trust laws" means that "Labor" may commit cer- 
tain crimes without criminal penalty. " The right of 
employees to bargain through representatives not of 
their own number'' means that employers shall be 
compelled by law to bargain with their employees 
only through the A. F. L. Collective bargaining 
means compulsory bargaining, forced on the em- 
ployer by Organized Labor. 

"The right to strike" demanded for government 
employees and railway men means that the A. F. L. 
may at any time hold up the life of the community. 
"Abolition of injunctions in labor disputes" means 
that the courts shall not in advance restrain strikers 
from doing violence and crime, but shall permit them 
to do both, running only the slight risks of trial by 
jury, with punishment if any, long after irreparable 
mischief has been done — all of which quite suits 
Labor. 

[108] 



MISCHIEF OF CENTRALIZATION 

For fear that workingmen may still steer clear of 
organization, Mr. Gompers would create a govern- 
ment monopoly of the employment agency business, 
in whose management the Federation shall have a 
voice ; that is to say, there would be but one office to 
which a laborer can turn for a job, managed by 
friends of the Federation, though paid for out of 
the public purse. He would also forbid by law that 
any welfare or uplift work be done by employers, 
and give to Organized Labor a monopoly of that 
work too, apparently urging such monopoly for fear 
that welfare work is a little game of employers to 
promote friendship and good will with their em- 
ployees. 

Finally, Mr. Gompers demands of his Republican 
friends opposition to the Kansas industrial courts, 
just as he has always voiced opposition to every 
proposal — whether coming from Congress, the ad- 
ministration, the employers, or the press — looking 
toward any kind of impartial justice, compulsory 
arbitration, prohibition of strikes, direct dealing be- 
tween employers and individual employees, or limita- 
tion of negotiations to the single establishment with 
its own men, disentangled from all others. 

In short, Mr. Gompers has the simple but gigantic 
conception and purpose of coaxing, sweeping, or 
driving all of the whales or minnows of Labor and 
Capital into one vast dragnet of which he holds the 
draw-string, letting not a single one escape to the 
ocean of lawful liberty; now and then hauling the 
whole struggling, gasping mass out onto the sand, 
taking part for food, and throwing back the rest 
until he wants more. 

Or perhaps, looking further ahead, Mr. Gompers 
realizes, as you gentlemen must realize, that though 
government is the greatest of all human activities, 

[109] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

yet collectively the industries are greater than gov- 
ernment, and he who dominates them will dominate 
government also. 

The coal and railway strikes, the current general 
strikes in Germany and Ireland to which their re- 
spective governments seem to be yielding as I write, 
this 14th of April, prove the assertion. The able 
master of the Federation of Labor knows that if 
but that small fraction of our labor which mans our 
coal mines, our transportation and public utilities, 
can be held together in one compact machine, obedi- 
ent to his hand; if, as he dreams, the voting power of 
that same fraction can be thrown solidly by him to 
this or that subservient politician, obedient to his 
order; if, as he demands of the Congressmen and 
other "statesmen" whom he owns, the gates of 
crime are thrown open to his machine and the de- 
fenses of law thrown down before it; if the nation, 
the state, the city, the railway, the private employer, 
the vast non-union majority of labor, are bound hand 
and foot by statute and thrown under his car of 
Juggernaut; if, I say, his modest dream comes true, 
why should Mr. Gompers start a labor " Party," 
or waste his time upon the Presidency of the United 
States? He sounds sincere when he proudly says: 
" I have been the President of the A. F. L. for many, 
many years. I regard that position as the most ex- 
alted I could occupy." Verily, as things are today, 
the Capitol Hill at Washington, held by Democrats, 
— or Republicans, "Arcades ambo" — offers but a 
broad and easy gradient for Labor's motor car, its 
armored "tank," as it were, to roll up and onto the 
top of the world. How much more magnificent 
would its master be if his " guiding hope . . . for a 
still greater organization of the yet unorganized, the 
skilled and unskilled man and woman of whatever 

[no] 



MISCHIEF OF CENTRALIZATION 

color, creed, or religion" should come to pass! 
Think of adding, in this country alone, say forty mil- 
lion more workers, with at least four hundred mil- 
lion dollars more annual dues, to the strength and 
resources of this colossal private machine! Why 
need he bother with representative government as 
guaranteed by the Constitution after Labor takes 
charge ? One organization, as he says, would " func- 
tion perfectly." 

Gentlemen of the press, there can be but one gov- 
ernment in these United States! Ole Hanson hit 
and rang the bell of American public opinion when 
he said to the I. W. W. leaders at Seattle, " The seat 
of City Government is at the City Hall." Calvin 
Coolidge hit it when he said, " There is no right to 
strike against the public safety, by anybody, any 
place, any time." 



[in] 



CHAPTER XIV 

CENTRALIZED ARBITRATION TAILS 

To begin with, centralized arbitration is weak, be- 
cause Mr, Gompers fights the creation of compulsory 
peace machinery, such as industrial courts or tri- 
bunals of arbitration, by whose decrees labor must 
be bound, and indeed opposes every- move whatever 
for making and keeping industrial peace, unless made 
by and through the Federation of Labor. Washing- 
ton dispatches of March 20 quote him upon the 
recommendations of President Wilson's second In- 
dustrial Conference as follows : 

" The Conference has devised a mass of ma- 
chinery to be made effective by law, composed of a 
national industrial board, and local and regional 
conferences or boards of inquiry. The whole situa- 
tion in this respect may be summed up as follows : 

11 Tried and tested machinery for conciliation and 
arbitration between employers and employees exists 
wherever employees are organized. This machinery 
functions perfectly wherever employers forsake the 
spirit of dominance and the attitude of autocracy. 
No machinery devised or supervised by the govern- 
ment . . . could achieve results superior ... In 
industries where the employees are not organized, 
no machinery of any kind, whether supervised by 
governmental agencies or otherwise, can produce in- 
dustrial justice . . . With organization of workers 
no structure of machinery need be thrust upon it 

[112] 



CENTRALIZED ARBITRATION FAILS 

from the outside ... It is to be feared that the 
[President's] Commission views industry from the 
viewpoint of the single shop, and builds its machin- 
ery on the theory that disputes are to be settled shop 
by shop. If such a viewpoint is actually to be carried 
into operation it will be most disastrous. Unavoid- 
ably, organization with independent shop units of 
the employees is a menace to the workers, for the 
reason that it organizes them away from each other 
and puts them in a position where shop may be played 
against shop. Not only the welfare of the workers 
but the best economy for the nation demands that 
industry, in so far as possible, be viewed in a national 
light and that the workers be united into organiza- 
tions covering whole industries, as is now the case 
with the one hundred and twenty national and inter- 
national trade-unions." 

Certainly no words of mine could etch President 
Gompers' portrait more clearly. " UEtatf C est 
moil" said the French king. What is the use of 
government? says Gompers. My Federation of 

Labor is all that is needed, provided those d d 

employers will just take off their hats, walk up to 
the captain's office, and settle. We can do it all, 
organize the men ourselves, dig up a grievance our- 
selves, call a strike ourselves, decide work and wages 
ourselves, fix both sides of a " collective bargain " 
ourselves, call off or keep up the strike ourselves, 
and remain entirely irresponsible all through, our- 
selves. " The fact of the whole matter is that the 
President's Commission, even though prompted by 
the best of motives, has neither the experience nor 
the understanding of the history of the methods and 
purposes of the Organized Labor Movement," etc., 
says the master of the A. F. L. 

It is kind of Gompers, though a bit patronizing, to 
[113] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

let Messrs. Hoover, Rosenwald, and their associates 
of the second Industrial Conference, down so easily 
— as merely stupid, not evil intentioned; but they 
are not such fools after all. Gompers says : " Where 
the employees are not organized, no machinery, of 
any kind, whether supervised by governmental agen- 
cies or otherwise, can produce industrial justice." 
How then does he explain the huge fact set forth 
and established in Chapters VIII and IX supra, that 
for the last forty years unorganized labor has gained 
in wages and conditions of employment more and 
faster than Organized Labor? Does he consider 
it industrial injustice that non-union labor has so 
gained? Again he says: "This machinery [the 
A. F. L.] functions perfectly wherever employers 
forsake the spirit of dominance and the attitude 
of autocracy." Let me, as commentary on this 
last, tell a short story of my own experience with 
the A. F. L. in a typewriter factory of which I was 
head. 

In 1903, after two attempts in 1901 and 1902, 
the Chicago Federation of Labor unionized my men 
and called them out, after having worked seven years 
in peace before the organizers came. (The latter, 
by the way, got a commission of two dollars a man 
for organizing two hundred and seventy men.) Six 
unions participated, — engineers, machinists, metal- 
workers, screw machine men, polishers, and japan- 
ners. The Chicago Federation delegates handled 
the strike. I could not, though I tried hard to do 
so, "bargain collectively" w T ith the six "business 
agents " who kept on visiting me for nearly eleven 
weeks, because they were running strikes at the same 
time in a harvester works, an ice machine factory, 
a saw factory, a switchboard works, all of which em- 
ployed members of the same unions as we did, but 

[»4] 



CENTRALIZED ARBITRATION FAILS 

whose size, product, seasonal activity, sales territory 
and methods, likewise their costs and overhead ex- 
penses, were so entirely apart from ours as to make 
it quite impossible for me to accept hours, wages, 
and shop conditions which were practical for them. 
I simply had to fight a long strike alone and to a 
finish, and we came out a non-union shop, with a 
sadder and wiser lot of workmen; for their unions 
could get them out of one job, but could not get them 
back or into another. The machine did not " func- 
tion perfectly." 

Take another illustration, the New York harbor 
strike now on (April 10) . It grows in some obscure 
way out of trouble between the United Fruit Com- 
pany and the coastwise longshoremen : first taken up 
by the Master Mates and Pilots Union, then by the 
Marine Engineers, and the Harbor Boatsmen. The 
Erie Railway sold some tugs it no longer needed to 
an independent towing company that worked over 
eight hours a day, and the unions " struck" the Erie 
Railroad Ferry Service, and then the other great 
roads serving New York, on the ground that the 
Erie sold the tugs in order that they might move 
the United Fruit boats after hours. The thing is 
too confused to prove much of anything, except the 
infernal mischief of tying all those unions together, 
so that the great harbor of New York, half a dozen 
trunk railroads, and several hundred thousand peo- 
ple are the victims of a controversy with which they 
had absolutely nothing to do. New York dispatches 
of April 4 quote Vice President Maher of the 
Marine Workers, the leader of this harbor strike, 
as announcing plans for a national strike of six mil- 
lion men, to head off this move of the Erie Road 
against the eight-hour day! Can this be called 
"perfect functioning" for peace? 

[115] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

A multitude of similar instances must come to the 
memory of you, gentlemen, who keep abreast of the 
news. It stands to reason that every difference of 
every concern with its employees, if organized by 
Mr. Gompers, is tied into those of countless other 
concerns and localities, involving ramifications which 
no man can be clever enough to foresee or innocent 
enough to escape; yet always all the strings lead 
away back into one focal grip — that of the tortuous 
master of the A. F. L. 

An amusing little sidelight is thrown upon the 
perfection of the functioning of Mr. Gompers' 
" tried and tested machinery for arbitration and con- 
ciliation," and the energy with which it grinds out 
industrial peace (?), by the following Resolution, 
No. 61 (see Report for 1919, page 461): "Re- 
solved, that this Convention of the A. F. L. go on 
record to do all in its power to adjust this strike 
of seven (7) years' duration, for the benefit of the 
International Union of Steam and Operating En- 
gineers." Think of it — only seven years on strike 
in the Chicago brickyards! However, "the smoke 
flew up the chimney just the same," and the bricks 
came out of the brickyards just the same, all during 
those years ! 

Of course Mr. Gompers does not want the In- 
dustrial Conference to get Capital and Labor into 
the horrid habit of settling their difficulties them- 
selves, shop by shop. Of course that would be disas- 
trous to Organized Labor. Of course he wants our 
laws to establish forever this childlike and blind 
proposition: that his huge centralized strike machine 
is the one and only mill to grind out first war, then 
peace, in industry. Does he not, gentlemen of the 
press, remind you of that innocent Kaiser who a 
few years ago made some delicious jokes to the effect 

[n6] 



CENTRALIZED ARBITRATION FAILS 

that he — mitt Gott, an iron will, shining armor, a 
mailed fist, the greatest army and next to the great- 
est navy on earth — dreamed of nothing but world 
peace and a quiet "place in the sun"? 

To do Mr. Gompers justice, however, judging 
from world-wide experience, we may well agree with 
him in expecting little or nothing from the Industrial 
Board recommended by the second Industrial Con- 
ference, or from the Railroad Labor Board set up 
by recent act of Congress, in the absence of lawful 
power to enforce a decision. The weakness of these 
great centralized, semipolitical, semijudicial tribu- 
nals for meddling with highly local and entirely com- 
mercial questions is threefold and fundamental, viz. : 

The first difficulty is that there are very few com- 
mon underlying conditions upon which general rules 
governing particular cases can be based. Nothing 
is more absolutely local, more entirely bounded by 
special conditions, than the workman's relation to his 
job. Each case in practice must be a law unto itself. 
Furthermore, even where justice is evident, if the 
men are not there, where the job is, or do not like 
it for any or no reason under the sun, the places will 
not be filled, nor the work go on; and unless the men 
break their contracts in quitting work, — or break 
some law yet to be enacted under which they accept 
work originally, — it is safe to say that no American 
authority will ever force them back to work. That 
would indeed be what Gompers calls " involuntary 
servitude." In a free country the law may say " thou 
shalt not"; but it can seldom say "thou shalt." If 
you, gentlemen, will look back over past history of 
the labor troubles, great or small, of your time, you 
will note that in the last resort, whether with or 
against the volition of the great labor organizations, 
settlements are eventually arrived at locally; by each 

[117] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

local management with its own men, conformably 
to local conditions and factors compelling both sides. 
Take, for instance, the great steel strike of last fall; 
which, I think, has never been " called off " by the 
twenty-six unions involved. It has died a natural 
death long ago, "petering out" locally, first at one 
plant and then at another, as man by man the strikers 
returned to work or were replaced. Or consider the 
recent soft coal strike, called off under order of the 
courts, but here and there kept up by local malcon- 
tents, — in Kansas, for instance, — local conditions 
prolonging or ending it. 

Or, for an unimportant but most significant in- 
stance, consider the strike of 1903 in my own type- 
writer factory in Chicago, already cited. Strikes 
were called simultaneously in a lot of shops besides 
our own, in other lines of manufacture, but all for 
an eight-hour day and twenty-five per cent increase 
in wages. 

We were working ten hours a day in competition 
with much larger factories in country towns in New 
York, Connecticut, and the West that also worked 
ten hours a day. Only by producing the maximum 
output of which our machinery was capable in a ten- 
hour day could we meet that competition. No re- 
gional industrial court, if called on to consider that 
strike, could have ignored the fact that a large num- 
ber of Chicago shops — though in other lines — that 
year had accepted a nine-hour day. Yet we were 
forced to stand out for ten; no nine-hour award 
would have been practical for our acceptance unless 
it compelled our distant competitors also to run nine 
hours instead of ten. Our men finally realized that 
they had been talked into striking a perfectly fair 
job; they came back, most of them, and we went 
on, strictly non-union, thereafter, governed by purely 

[n8] 



CENTRALIZED ARBITRATION FAILS 

local conditions. The Gompers machine did not 
function. 

In short, nothing really settles a strike at any 
given point — whether part of a larger strike or not 
— except agreement finally reached between local 
management and local labor supply; and it must in- 
evitably be based upon wages and conditions, neces- 
sarily governed by locality, which the management 
can see its way temporarily or permanently to offer, 
and labor can equally see its way to accept. 

What, then, is the sense or logic of endeavoring 
to pry apart these two real parties to the bargain 
which must eventually be made, and insert between 
them a tertium quid — ponderous, distant, and igno- 
rant of or disposed to resist the local forces, which 
must ultimately prevail? The only reason whatever 
for so unnecessary and senseless a procedure is that 
exactly this thing has become familiar ; has so often 
been done by the Federation of Labor and the 
Brotherhoods and the I. W. W., under leaders 
whose conspicuous and gainful jobs depend on keep- 
ing Capital and Labor apart. Our politicians reason 
that wherever Gompers chooses to drive his great 
Federation wedge in to split the oak of industry 
wide open, Congress must patch up by quickly ap- 
plying turn-buckles, or steel bands, in the form of 
governmental pressure, to stop the cleavage and hold 
the sides together. 

But why not simply knock out the wedge and for- 
bid driving in any more; — forego the constriction 
of restraining bands, and let the cleft trunk close and 
heal naturally? As for the sound, unhurt trees of 
the forest, why not let them grow strong and great 
in peace? 

The second difficulty with centralized arbitration 
is the element of time. Business of all kinds, espe- 
cially public service, is necessarily constructive, not 

[119] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

deliberative. Every head of a large organization 
knows by repeated experience that he must decide — 
keep the wheels turning — do things. It is inevit- 
able, in prompt decision, that he will sometimes 
blunder and do the wrong thing. If so, he finds it 
out, and takes the back track as fast as possible. 
Such errors are expected, excusable, part of the 
game; but to delay, doing nothing, is inexcusable, 
fatal to constructive work. 

The necessary delay in settlement of labor dis- 
putes, especially actual strikes, involved in submitting 
them to central judicial tribunals, would probably 
cause avoiding appeal to them in most cases. A 
court can't force local conditions to square them- 
selves with theoretic general desideranda. Every 
day that a plant stops output is nil, overhead cost 
is wasted, and trade is lost; every day the laborer 
idles, just so much pay is gone forever. Speed in 
coming to an agreement is vital. 

No better proof of this weakness of centralized 
arbitration and conciliation could be asked than the 
present "outlaw" railroad strike, caused, as the 
strikers say, by delay of the President in appointing 
the Labor Board, which was to make good his last 
year's pledge to reduce cost of living or raise wages. 
The statistics of 36,757 strikes and 1546 lockouts 
between 1881 and 1905, compiled by Commissioner 
of Labor Carroll D. Wright, show, from their aver- 
age duration of strikes, twenty-five days, and lock- 
outs, eighty-five days, that workingmen get down to 
the settling point far sooner than employers — the 
majority of workmen are not financed for idleness 
beyond thirty to sixty days. Unless the central in- 
dustrial tribunal shall function faster than any other 
judicial tribunal yet devised by man, both employers 
and employees will starve out, and be forced to settle 

[120] 



CENTRALIZED ARBITRATION FAILS 

directly with each other before the court gets around 
to try an average case; after that it has no power 
to enforce its decree, and none is needed. 

These objections apply with peculiar force to the 
Super-Labor Board of the League of Nations, for 
it is impossible to conceive of its acting in particular, 
even in important, cases, so as directly to help the 
labor involved. Imagine, for instance, trying the 
Lawrence textile strike of 19 12, or the present " out- 
law " railroad strike, or the Boston police strike, be- 
fore the League tribunal at Geneva, Switzerland, or 
even before a regional tribunal here. How long 
would the workers wait for its decisions, and what 
international military power would compel the Law- 
rence mills, or the City of Boston, to obey its tardy 
decrees when rendered? I am probably of a most 
" pygmy mind," but I cannot for the life of me see 
anything real in that Labor Board of the League of 
Nations but a lot of solemn, pretentious, highly paid, 
exceedingly soft, and absolutely useless jobs for ex- 
labor leaders, whose pronouncements will have about 
as much effect on the daily ebb and flow of American 
work and wages as our radio experts' high-tension 
waves out in Nebraska recently seemed to have on 
the currents of the canals of Mars. 

The third difficulty — and perhaps the most de- 
cisive in many minds — is that Mr. Gompers him- 
self objects to any governmental method of settling 
labor troubles; unless so contrived that the A. F. L. 
controls the settling, which brings us back to the 
precise point whence we started. 

Let me here once more sound the note of decen- 
tralization, of simplicity; of American common 
sense, if there is any longer virtue in an appeal to 
that former characteristic. When I hear our Cam- 
bridge sociologists talk about the rights and aspira- 

[ 121 ] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

tions of Labor, the greed and autocracy of Capi- 
tal, and the duty and culpability of Society in the 
premises, they remind me of runaway balloons filled 
with buoyant gas, with no anchor rope to tie them 
to the solid ground of fact; mounting higher and 
higher into the glittering clouds of collectivity and 
generality, until the rarefied atmosphere no longer 
can hold in their swelling mentality 7 , and they burst. 
Some president, Wilson or Gompers, or both, sup- 
plies the gas and cuts the anchor ropes; for those 
gentlemen, quite unlike our sociologists, know ex- 
actly what they want, and how to use what the 
French call ballons d'essai. 

Never mind them; it is the average voter from 
whose mind we should clear the pernicious habit of 
thinking in imaginary collectivities. "Capital" and 
"Labor," for instance, are mere words, like "So- 
ciety," denoting collectivities that do not exist or 
act as such. What really does exist and is called 
Capital is a great diversity of industries, several 
hundred of them; in a lot of different places, several 
thousand; subdivided into some 8000 concerns em- 
ploying more, and over 400,000 employing less, than 
250 hands, hardly any two of which are exactly alike 
in anything but their employment of Labor. There 
are miners, manufacturers, bankers, merchants, etc. 
— limited groups that sometimes act collectively for 
limited objects in a limited way, but never act col- 
lectively as Capital. Messrs. Parry, Van Cleave, 
and Kirby, for instance, fifteen years ago, tried in 
vain to solidify against the Federation of Labor 
even so small a number as the then 3500 members 
of the National Association of Manufacturers, out 
of over 300,000 employers. Wall Street never 
holds together on anything. There really is no such 
thing as a Capitalist Class, no class consciousness 

[122] 



CENTRALIZED ARBITRATION FAILS 

or concerted action. Selfishness, individualism, is 
the foundation of Capitalism. 

There is no such collectivity as Society. There 
are Democrats, Presbyterians, Prohibitionists, brick- 
layers, doctors, etc., who respectively act collectively 
once in a while as such ; but when do they act collec- 
tively as Society? 

As for Labor, here we have 45 million laborers, 
of, say, 200 crafts or trades, of whom 4 or 5 mil- 
lions are members of some 35,000 unions, and full 
40 millions are free and unorganized. Wherein do 
these millions act collectively as Labor ? 

When, therefore, the President solemnly " passes 
the buck" to Congress last fall as follows: " Surely 
there must be some method of bringing together in 
a council of peace and amity these two great in- 
terests . . . some acceptable tribunal for adjusting 
the differences between Capital and Labor," one 
wonders how he proposes to fetch the two parties 
into court. Mr. Gompers will not let his big unions 
come in for fear justice would be done, apparently. 
He wants no peace but one dictated by the Federa- 
tion of Labor. As to all the rest, my little type- 
writer factory strike shows what actually happens. 

The Federation got into the factory, unionized it, 
and struck for an eight-hour day and twenty-five 
per cent advance in wages. The questions put to 
me as president were simple, and in no way con- 
cerned with the "sanction of society" for an eight- 
hour day, as announced by the President twelve years 
after; nor with the " aspirations of labor," a phrase 
not then invented. They did have a little to do with 
the " democratization of industry," though not then 
so called; for shop discipline was to be taken away 
from the management and turned over to a com- 
mittee of the hands. They also touched the " rights 

[ 123 ] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

of labor" a little, as we were to discharge all men 
who did not join the unions, and take out of the 
pay of all union members their union dues, fines, 
etc., and pay them over to the union treasury on the 
" check-oft " plan. They boiled down to two : Could 
the company pay the wages and work the hours 
asked, and successfully meet the competition of other 
manufacturers? Also, could the company satisfac- 
torily work men who took its wages but not its or- 
ders, obeying first their unions ? My answer to both, 
dictated by circumstances quite beyond union con- 
trol or our own, was No. The question then came 
up to each man individually: Could he get a better 
job, or any job at all, without going to another city 
for it; and if not, was our job good enough to throw 
up his union for and come back to? Two hundred 
men answered to this last question, Yes. 

Now I submit to you, gentlemen, that all the Pres- 
idents of the United States, all the Arbitration 
Boards, if created, all the sociologists and collectiv- 
ists that ever plastered themselves over society, 
could not aid either myself or the men concerned 
to answer those simple questions. Local conditions, 
which no one knew so well as those directly involved, 
answered them beyond dispute, automatically. 

If, then, Gompers and the big unions don't want 
an Arbitration Board, and the 400,000 small em- 
ployers and the 40 million non-union workers can't 
use one, why create it at all? It might now and 
then settle a strike ; but there is no need of a Krupp 
gun to shoot sparrows. Are there not enough use- 
less bureaus and salaries at Washington without 
asking for more? 

Collective or standardized harmonization of the 
infinite variety of differences that arise between so 
many thousand employees and million workers in so 

[124] 



CENTRALIZED ARBITRATION FAILS 

many hundreds of trades and places is a rank impos- 
sibility, beyond human wisdom to accomplish. It 
was never thought of until recently, and would not be 
thought of now but for the great centralized trades- 
unions, whose votes the politicians fear and whose 
strikes the people have learned to dread. If there 
was reasonable likelihood that centralized arbitra- 
tion would either suit Gompers or preserve indus- 
trial peace, there might be some sense in creating a 
second huge machinery to counterbalance the first. 
But as the second is no good, and the first is a 
menace to the nation, why not simply cut them both 
out, and go back to first principles of keeping the 
peace and enforcing the law along the picket line, 
the one certain cure for strike fever? 

Collectivitis is a mental disease, a bad habit of 
thought, that makes not only our clergy and soci- 
ologists in Cambridge, New York, Wisconsin, and 
elsewhere, but also many of our statesmen, quite in- 
capable of thinking except emotionally; and in terms 
of "aspirations," "democratization," "problems," 
"interests," "councils," "tribunals," of "Labor," 
" Capital," and " Society." I note here in Cam- 
bridge one good sign, however, — that the "new 
order" does not as yet revolutionize private life. 
The "sanction of society" has not yet established 
the eight-hour day for housemaids; nor has the 
democratization of industry gone so far that the 
cook may invite the mistress to discuss whether cook- 
ing or playing the piano is the duty of the hour. 
Nor may the cook even refuse to cook, refuse to 
leave, and refuse to let any other cook take her 
place, — on the score of her aspirations, — at least 
with the consent of her " autocratic " employer. The 
lady still feels that if the cook takes her wages, she 
ought also to take her orders. Laus Deo. 

[125] 



CHAPTER XV 

LABOR LEADERSHIP. MR. GOMPERS 

Let us give that interesting and important personal- 
ity, Mr. Gompers, the " once-over" anyway. He is 
entitled to it, for the free use made of his name so 
far; and he comes pretty near being the whole labor- 
show. Except for a single term he has been re- 
elected president of the American Federation of 
Labor for thirty-nine years, I believe; and before 
the Federation he was a power in his own union, the 
cigar makers'. Under him the Federation has grown 
to its present great size. One ambitious worker 
after another must have arisen to dispute his leader- 
ship; yet with one exception he has beaten all rivals 
and scored thirty-nine annual reelections. An ex- 
traordinary record — unparalleled, as far as I know, 
in the history of democratic institutions of any mag- 
nitude ! He must be exceedingly loyal to his asso- 
ciates, and to the great organization he has created. 
He is said to be by birth an English Jew; but he 
ought to have been a Prussian, for he is as ruthless 
as Bismarck. Here is what he says of himself 
(Report, page 106) : "I want more, more, more for 
Labor. I think I have tried, and am trying to do 
my share ... I have been the President of the 
A. F. L. for many, many years. I regard that posi- 
tion as the most exalted that I could occupy ... I 
ask that the trades-union movement be given its 
fullest opportunity for growth and development, so 
that it mav be the instrumentalitv to secure better, 

[126] 



LABOR LEADERS 

and better, and better, and constantly better condi- 
tions, for the workers of our country ... I am 68 
years of age, I have been tried and seared as few 
men have . . .'somehow or other I believe that 
there are yet considerable years of fight left in me 
for Labor. . . . The only thing I can leave to my 
fellow men is that I have helped to bring about a 
labor movement in our country that is better, more 
comprehensive and more united than in any other 
country on the face of the globe." Elsewhere he 
says (Report, page 474) : u when we have in mind 
the respect we have instilled . . . the tremendous 
achievements of our movement in bringing light into 
the lives of the toiling masses of our country, when 
we know of the influence we have exerted even with 
the comparatively small number yet organized, it is 
the harbinger of hope that as time goes on, if we are 
to be true to . . . the fundamental principles and 
high ideals of our movement, it is enough to inspire 
one and all to greater activity and service. It is a 
privilege to live, contributing so much of service 
. . . for the years to come let it be our guiding 
hope to work for a still greater organization, . . . 
of the yet unorganized, the skilled and unskilled of 
whatever color, creed, religion . . ." 

These words sound sincere. I heard ex-Secretary 
Redfield the other day publicly refer to Mr. Gom- 
pers as an "unselfish and useful man"; and so say 
many of the important men who know him person- 
ally, as I do not. Furthermore, he is said to be 
merely comfortably off; not rich, as he might easily 
be, either from the enormous revenues of the feder- 
ated unions, or from use of his great organizing 
ability in private 1 business for his own benefit. (The 
late John Mitchell, for instance, died recently worth 
a quarter million dollars ; which shows what an able 

[127] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

labor leader can earn. I do not wish, by the way, 
to assume that there was "tainted money" in Mr. 
Mitchell's fortune; concerning which I know noth- 
ing, except that the newspapers mentioned it when 
he died.) Mr. Gompers may perhaps wear dia- 
monds and ride in an automobile — these things ap- 
pear to be merely the recognized insignia that go 
with labor leadership, just as pearls and motor cars 
go with captaincy of industry; yet his salary, $10,000 
a year, — recently raised from $7500, — is modest, 
considering his work. He seems not avaricious of 
money; perhaps does not care even for personal 
power and fame, though that would be natural and 
legitimate if he did. 

The activities of his organization are colossal. 
The Report of its conventions are almost state docu- 
ments. The work of its committees, especially those 
on reconstruction, legislation, and education, show 
a far-reaching intelligence and efficiency that decid- 
edly surpasses that shown by many legislators and 
educators on whom they keep watch ; for their own 
interest, that is. 

Were their aims not so selfish, their work so sinis- 
ter in its bearing on morals, economics, and politics, 
that work would be as admirable as it is extraordi- 
nary. Evidently there is ruling mentality of high 
order at work, which must belong to, or be found 
and controlled by, Mr. Gompers himself. 

I would classify him as an enthusiast, a fanatic 
if you will, devoted to "Labor," — which has prob- 
ably become to him, like "Kultur" to the Prussian, 
or the Empire to the Japanese, an impersonal and 
dominating idea, — to which the individual working- 
man belongs, to which he owes blind loyalty; which 
can do no wrong; whose welfare outweighs all moral 
considerations. 

[128] 



LABOR LEADERS 

Otherwise I cannot understand how he can fight 
so ruthlessly for monopoly of labor, for denial of 
the non-union man's right to work, the employer's 
right to hire ; for combination to coerce, the right to 
strike and starve or freeze us all — to deny the baby 
its bottle of milk and the washerwoman her hod of 
coal. 

Even harder is it to understand how a man of his 
mental grasp, if he is unselfish and sincere, as his 
friends declare, can fail to see and recognize the 
criminal blunder (which I hope you, gentlemen of 
the press, will verify) established by indisputable 
records, namely: that union practice of monopoly, 
coercion, and sloth actually and necessarily hurts 
rather than helps his own constituents, the union 
laborers, — reacting on them and their country mor- 
ally and materially, benefiting no one but himself 
and his associates. Nor can I understand how a 
patriot of his ability and experience, if sincere, can 
shut his eyes to the fact that his entire political 
propaganda — urging the use of the "labor vote" 
solely for the laborers' class advantage; attacking 
police and military power, if used to keep the peace 
in "industrial warfare"; attacking the authority of 
the supreme courts to keep our legislatures within 
their constitutional powers — that all this strikes at 
the very roots of our constitutional, American, re- 
publican form of government. 

Congressman Blanton is not so uncertain about 
Mr. Gompers' sincerity as I am — when I read what 
such men as Secretary Redfield, and the distinguished 
members of the National Civic Federation, in which 
Mr. Gompers sits as Vice-President, who know him 
personally, as I do not, have to say of him. Here is 
part of Mr. Blanton's summary of Mr, Gompers' 
recent unpatriotic acts, as spread upon the Congres- 

[129] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

sional Record, February 4, 1920. Blanton charges 
that Gompers : 

Opposed by letter, August 14, 191 8, the Thomas 
"Work or Fight" amendment to the draft law, re- 
storing laborers to draft classification should they 
" strike " war work, for doing which they were 
exempted. 

Permitted the calling of approximately six thou- 
sand strikes during our eighteen months in the war, 
as tallied by Department of Labor. 

Opposed successfully making Government De- 
partment clerks work eight hours instead of seven 
when increasing pay $120; threatening a "walkout" 
of all employees in the middle of wartime. 

Aided Railroad Brotherhoods to force repeated 
wage raises during war by threats of strikes, and 
in 191 6 to pass the Adamson Law. 

Threatened a revolution if Congress should pass 
an antistrike provision in the Railroad Bill. 

Denounced the President and the courts for grant- 
ing an injunction against the soft coal strikers — and 
threatened revolution. 

Denounced and tried to defeat Governor Coolidge 
for his action in the Boston police strike. 

Denounced prohibition and threatened revolution 
unless laborers get their beer and wine. 

Killed the antisedition bill asked for by the At- 
torney General last January, aimed at anarchists, 
"because it interfered with the aspirations of Or- 
ganized Labor." 

The Congressional Record contains the detailed 
proof sustaining these charges, — January 29 and 
February 4, 1920, — which is too long to quote here. 
Mr. Gompers denounces the Congressman who put 
these things in the Record as " blatant, bleating, 
Blanton " ; but the record stands there just the same. 

[130] 



LABOR LEADERS 

Congressman Blanton's charge, that Organized 
Labor called 6000 strikes during our participation 
in the great war, calls attention to Mr. Gompers' 
repeated references, at Laredo and elsewhere, to the 
patriotic " sacrifices " made by Organized Labor to 
win the war. It is worth while to glance at the 
record, and ask what it shows to support Mr. Gom- 
pers' vociferous claims. 

While I would not for a moment question the 
genuine patriotism of the American laborer, union 
or non-union, it is hard to perceive wherein Organ- 
ized Labor made any sacrifice that should entitle 
it to any change of status hereafter, as a cash re- 
ward of virtue. 

As a matter of fact, Organized Labor is largely 
skilled labor, and was deliberately kept at home, 
far from the perils of the fighting line, by the Selec- 
tive Draft, for the one purpose of maintaining 
output of munitions and supplies. Not having the 
statistics at hand I cannot say what percentage of 
union labor, as compared with non-union, was called 
to the colors; but it must have been small. Skilled 
labor largely remained at home, working for the 
shortest hours and the longest pay checks in history. 
The whole effort to make Congress award a bonus 
to veterans of actual service is in order to put them 
on an equal footing financially with those who stayed 
safe at home, coining money. 

When, therefore, Mr. Gompers talks of Labor's 
sacrifices, does he mean to claim credit for calling 
only 6000 strikes instead of perhaps 20,000; or for 
not holding up the taxpayers of his country for still 
higher wages than the highest ever known? Just 
where does the measure of patriotism come in that 
differentiates the 4 million organized laborers from 
the 44 million unorganized, listed by the Selective 

[131] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

Draft Boards? Can you answer this conundrum, 
I wonder? 

I put another query up to you : Is Mr. Gompers 
a demagogue; or an honest fanatic; or a good deal 
of both? What is your opinion, gentlemen? 



[132] 



CHAPTER XVI 

THE RAILWAY BROTHERHOODS 

I have called attention to the fact that the wages 
of the locomotive engineers have risen proportion- 
ately far less than non-union wages in the last forty 
years, despite the admitted strength of their union. 
The same is true of the firemen and trainmen. It 
is true that there has been the powerful influence 
against raise of wages of the action of the Interstate 
Commerce Commission in forbidding natural and 
legitimate advance of railway service rates during 
the past twenty years; which has held railway in- 
come to starvation figures and nearly wrecked that 
enormous and vital industry. It has been impossible 
for the railway managements to pay higher wages 
without higher income (in fact it is in general true 
that a losing business cannot pay good wages) ; and 
meanwhile, as the railways are the only employers 
of railway labor, the unlucky railway employees have 
had to go without their proportionate increase of 
pay, or else get out of railway employ — which most 
of them are too old or too timid to do. 

This case is a complete and very broad demon- 
stration of the fact that unions cannot control wages; 
but that on the contrary they are absolutely governed 
— i first, by ability of the trade in question to pay; 
and second, by local supply and demand for the labor 
in question. 

It is one more proof of the uselessness of great 
national strike machinery. 

[i33] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

It should be said, in justice to the Big Four 
Brotherhoods, that their purpose and temper' are 
very different from that of Mr. Gompers' Federa- 
tion; as appears both from their past record and 
their present attitude in standing by the railways 
against the so-called "Outlaw" strike now pending; 
and also from their Constitution. The Locomotive 
Engineers' Preamble says: 

" The aim of the employer and the employee being co- 
ordinate, the aim of the Organization will be cooperation, 
and the cultivation of amicable relations . . . and to 
guarantee the fulfillment of every contract made in its name." 

The Constitution of the Brotherhood of Railroad 
Trainmen in its Preamble says: 

" Persuaded that it is for the interest of both members and 
their employers that good understanding should prevail, the 
constant endeavor of the organization shall be to sustain 
mutual confidence and harmonious relations." 

When we contrast the spirit of the foregoing with 
that of the Gompers' Preamble, asserting struggle 
between oppressor and oppressed, it seems most un- 
desirable that the Brotherhoods should now regu- 
larly affiliate with the Federation of Labor, as Mr. 
Gompers announced at its last convention they were 
about to do. Perhaps their recent departure in ad- 
vocacy of the Plumb Plan, and their threat of a 
general strike in support of it, show the influence 
of the rapid growth of the Federation of late years, 
and conversion to the Gompers propaganda. In the 
writer's guess both the Brotherhoods and the Federa- 
tion have, for the moment anyway, touched high- 
water mark. Just as the disturbing pull of the moon 
can never lift the tides past the sand bars of the 
beach, so demagogy can never hoist Labor over the 

[134] 



THE RAILWAY BROTHERHOODS 

settled barrier of human necessity. When Labor 
comes up against the public welfare, the latter is sure 
to prevail. 

I do not doubt that the foregoing formal recogni- 
tion of the mutuality of interest of the railways and 
their employees, together with the naturally high- 
grade character and large mental caliber of railway 
men, due to the largeness of their daily work, has 
held them back, perhaps against their own interest, 
in serving the community in recent years. I should 
like to give them credit for unselfishness. 

I am here reminded of another factor that always 
slows down the raise of union wages, as against 
non-union wages. If a non-union shop is short a 
few men it can go out and quietly bid up for them 
until it gets them, without necessarily raising wages 
of all men on the pay roll. The union shop, on the 
contrary, must risk a general raise of the union scale 
if it has to bid up for a few men. Many employers 
prefer to pay more than union scale to non-union 
men, to keep them out of the unions, and for the 
sake of other advantages realized. I have done so 
myself. The same is done quite often in the soft 
coal regions. But I wander. It is generally true 
for obvious reasons that it is easier for the good 
individual workman to get a raise than to raise a 
whole union scale. 



[135] 



CHAPTER XVII 

AUTOCRACY OF CAPITAL. TYPEWRITER AND 
BOSTON SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA STRIKES 

It is worth while in passing to put a value on certain 
sounding phrases which adorn Mr. Gompers' ora- 
tory, and are often echoed by widely different men 
and women among us; for instance, the "Autocracy 
of Employers." 

Judge Gary is the pet "autocrat" denounced by 
all denouncers. I have already cited the Gary case 
at some length ; let me — " ut parva magnis " — also 
cite for further illustration my own typewriter fac- 
tory strike already referred to. My factory was 
small, myself far below the rank of an autocrat, the 
case like countless thousands in the minor industries, 
and no prejudice against multimillions should cloud 
any man's consideration of it. 

The concern in question, the Remington-Sholes 
Company, was making a typewriter in competition 
with the so-called "Typewriter Trust," which had 
merged the five or six leading machines in one 
monopoly when formed. It was fighting that trust, 
had gone into a large and open labor market, — Chi- 
cago, — had opened a well-equipped and most com- 
fortable shop, paid highest wages, and run along for 
seven years building up a perfectly harmonious and 
contented body of two hundred and seventy work- 
men. Its superintendent and foreman were popular, 
and not one dispute had ever clouded its sky. Its 
owners believed in the theory that a well-paid and 

[136] 



AUTOCRACY OF CAPITAL 

contented force of men is more than worth all it 
costs, and they acted thereon. 

But those two hundred and seventy men were 
worth in dues to the local trades-unions, if organ- 
ized, say, $i a month each, or $3240 per annum; 
and the organizers who should round them up would 
get for doing so $2 each as commission, or $540 for 
a few days' work. So in 1903, a year of special 
labor unrest in Chicago, about two hundred of them 
were induced to unionize — joining one or other of 
six local unions, according to their respective crafts. 
They were promised by the organizers the eight- 
hour day — the factory then running ten hours; a 
twenty-five per cent raise in wages; a closed "union 
shop"; shop discipline to be controlled by a union 
committee ; full pay for time lost on strike ; the right 
to go on "sympathetic strike," etc., and were told 
that in future no non-union man would be permitted 
to hold a job in any shop in Chicago. As soon as 
organized, the men were called out on strike. 

As heretofore explained, the little shop was com- 
peting with great ones of ten times its capacity, 
located in Eastern country towns, running ten hours 
a day and favored with lower wage rates. Its plant 
and force were balanced to full ten-hour a day run 
and output, at highest speed of automatic machine 
tools ; it was barely making a profit, and to run less 
than ten hours meant certain loss, and ruin in a year 
or so. Before the strike was called I invited the 
unions to put expert accountants on the books and 
verify that fact, given as ground for refusing the 
union demands. The Business Agents of the six 
unions declined, saying that our books would be 
"doctored" to prove my words; and that anyway 
the unions were not interested in our profit or loss 
and did not care to do business with weak concerns. 

[137] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

They were going to put all Chicago factories on 
an eight-hour basis and twenty-five per cent increase 
of wages — and if our factory could not live on that 
basis in Chicago, it could get out of Chicago or out 
of business. I asked them then, What of our men 
whom they had just unionized: were they to lose 
their jobs? The answer was: They must sacrifice 
themselves, if need be, for the " cause of Labor." 
And the poor fellows did. 

At the end of eleven weeks three quarters of them 
quit their unions for good and all and came back 
wiser and poorer men. The other quarter disap- 
peared, and I suppose found other jobs. The men 
lost $45,000 in wages and we lost over $20,000 in 
carrying charges. The eight-hour day was not then 
generally established, though many Chicago shops 
went on to a nine-hour schedule that year. I do not 
know its length now. 

There was almost no violence or bad blood at our 
shop, though there was elsewhere, and across the 
river the Kellogg Switchboard Company had a fierce 
and bloody battle with the same six unions, in which 
even girls were slugged, machinery was wrecked, har- 
ness cut, and vitriol thrown on girls and horses. We, 
however, closely imitated the Studebakers of Fort 
Wayne. They had met recent organization of their 
large force by quickly shutting down, and saying to 
their men that, having worked with them harmoni- 
ously for many years, they felt they could not get 
along any better with others. They would there- 
fore not attempt to run or fill the strikers' places. 
If the latter changed their minds and wanted their 
old jobs back, they could have them on the old terms 
whenever enough men reported for duty to start the 
works to advantage. In the Studebaker case the 
men came back — non-union — after nine weeks. We 

[138] 



AUTOCRACY OF CAPITAL 

told our men and did exactly the same — -and they 
found out that the unions could take their jobs away, 
but not give them back, in eleven weeks. 

By the way, when we finally started up we had to 
fill some seventy vacant places and so advertised for 
men. Under the advice of a detective agency that 
made a specialty of strikes, we ran three different 
"ads" over different reply initials for each trade; 
for instance, "union polishers, closed shop" — "non- 
union polishers, non-union shop" — and "polishers, 
open shop." This was to head off union spies, an- 
swering all three ways — as some twenty-five actu- 
ally did answer and were of course ignored. We 
received over iooo replies, of which — and this is 
the interesting circumstances — nearly 900 were for 
the non-union shop ! Many of the men wrote 
strongly, saying they wished jobs free from strikes, 
where they could work as hard and make as much 
on piece work or overtime as they pleased. Of 
course we filled up the shop very quickly with good 
men. 

I have given this little story at some length be- 
cause it is a very pretty and typical illustration of 
three things: the worked-up, purely artificial variety 
of "Labor Unrest" displayed; the utter failure of 
"autocracy," if attempted, on our part; and the 
still more ghastly failure of " democratization of 
industry," in a bullheaded attempt to force the im- 
possible without investigation. 

Our men had had no cause of complaint, and 
when they came back after throwing overboard their 
union, they said so; cursing themselves for having 
been fooled with promises of an eight-hour day and 
a twenty-five per cent advance, and for having been 
frightened of being driven out of Chicago unless 
they joined the union. 

[i39] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

My own autocracy consisted in opening an attrac- 
tive shop in Chicago and offering best going wages 
for labor in a lawful and useful line of manufacture, 
under best sanitary conditions, in competition with 
many hundred other employers. I could compel no 
man to accept or stay in my employ; as was manifest 
when my men quit incontinently as the walking dele- 
gate blew his whistle. Prior to organization every 
man had voluntarily picked our job from many, was 
glad to take it originally, and glad to return to it 
eventually. Meantime, autocrat as I was, I had to 
drop all thought of enforcing " wage slavery," or of 
continuing our peaceful and useful trade of making 
typewriters. I simply had to sit down and wait till 
our "wage-slaves" chose to return, after shopping 
around Chicago in vain, be it understood, for other 
or better jobs — which perhaps a quarter of their 
number actually found, and never came back at all; 
poor fettered creatures. 

A little spot-light may here be thrown on trades- 
unionism. The detective agency referred to 
" owned" as its manager said, a labor leader in 
each union sufficiently high in office to furnish to the 
agency the unions' regular financial reports twice a 
month, also detailed reports of executive meetings, 
so as to inform me accurately just what each union 
was doing and paying out in the various pending 
strikes, our own included. The detective said the 
leaders were a bunch of grafters; and the financial 
reports looked that way. For instance, pickets were 
paid for doing strike duty at our factory for weeks 
after they had entirely disappeared from the streets, 
and were said by our men to have left town. // so, 
who got their pay? Again, a leading labor lawyer, 
known all over the United States as a champion of 
the downtrodden workingman, charged them (our 

[140] 



AUTOCRACY OF CAPITAL 

unions) many thousand dollars for services, defend- 
ing sluggers, etc., during the few weeks I took these 
reports; just to the few unions concerned with our 
factory. Verily, he was a champion of the poor 
— for a consideration/ He charged them in our 
case — we enjoined violence, and brought to trial a 
couple of sluggers — far more than our attorney 
charged us in the same case; which we won. 

This experience made me very skeptical of the 
judicious and honest expenditure of the many mil- 
lions paid in by poor men to the union treasuries; 
men who are weak in the knowledge of accounting, 
and helpless in the hands of their officers — whether 
honest or grafters. 

One more story of the kind and we will pass to 
more agreeable reading: of the strike in the Boston 
Symphony Orchestra in February, 1920. 

Boston's first citizen, the late Major Henry Lee 
Higginson, had nearly forty years before founded 
and supported the premier orchestra in the United 
States; not for profit, but for the sake of very per- 
fect musical art. There was, as he well knew there 
would be, no money in it, but a sure annual excess 
of operating cost over possible box-office receipts; 
just as to run a university costs far more than pos- 
sible receipts for tuition. The resulting loss Major 
Higginson paid for thirty-seven years, until an as- 
sociation was formed to take the load off his shoul- 
ders. If it was as costly as other orchestras whose 
finances I have known, that loss must have averaged 
at least twenty-five thousand dollars annually for all 
those years. 

Nevertheless, Major Higginson persisted in em- 
ploying the best musicians only, paying the highest 
salaries and giving the longest engagement known 
throughout the entire world of orchestra — domestic 

[141] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

and foreign. His men were the aristocrats and plu- 
tocrats of their profession; they played none but the 
best music, under the most dignified and agreeable 
conditions, and enjoyed the professional prestige of 
the first institution of the kind in the world; all of 
this at the expense and heavy personal loss of Major 
Higginson and some other lovers of good art. 

But these musicians were not paying union dues. 
The local branch of the Musicians' Union affiliated 
with the A. F. L. said to them: "These men who 
pay that deficit are rich, and the audience that pay 
for tickets are rich; they are lying about a deficit 
anyway, and are making money. Don't believe the 
bosh they are talking about working for Art. What 
you want is cash. Join our union and strike ! We 
will hold that crowd up for $1000 a year apiece 
additional salary for you boys all around. Also we 
will take the discipline and rules of the orchestra 
away from an autocratic conductor, and let you pass 
on them yourselves." 

Two thirds of the members of this noble orches- 
tra, this unselfish creation of a generous man, are 
said to have succumbed to the bait of a thousand- 
dollar holdup dangled before their eyes. They 
joined the union and promptly struck — out! 

Very properly, the trustees decided that they were 
conducting an art, and not a commercial institution, 
under unique conditions of comfort, consideration, 
and compensation of the musicians, and at heavy 
cost to its supporters; and therefore that recognition 
of the union and dictation by it, in a purely selfish 
commercial spirit, was incompatible with art pur- 
pose. As every musician who had struck was bound 
by written contract, which he had violated, he was 
consequently discharged, pay to cease forthwith. 

The men so discharged, who cannot find another 

[142] 



AUTOCRACY OF CAPITAL 

such engagement in the whole world, are now sadly 
wondering whether " democratization of industry" 
is all it was cracked up to be. Their places have been 
acceptably filled; and though it may be some time 
before it recovers its fine edge of perfect ensemble 
and blending, the great orchestra, after a very few 
weeks of anxiety, goes on its triumphant way. 

I cite this instance to show how from purely mer- 
cenary motive union organizers come in, stir up 
causeless discontent, and lightly gamble with and 
wreck the profitable and friendly relations of men 
whom they pretend to serve. The case was aggra- 
vated by the attempt either to wreck a great institu- 
tion, or to hold up those who already handsomely 
support it at heavy loss, for still heavier loss. The 
utter stupidity of an attempt to better the best exist- 
ing job of its kind by quitting it, the contemptible 
selfishness of trying to rob a group of generous men, 
are so super-characteristic of Organized Labor that 
it is worth while to impale them here as the en- 
tomologist pins ugly spiders, let us say, to his 
specimen board, and puts them under glass for the 
students' convenient examination. 

Of course Major Higginson and the Trustees 
who succeeded him were denounced as autocrats by 
some of our conscientious sociologists because they 
stood for good art, paid for it, and wanted what 
they paid for, quite oblivious of the charms of 
" democratization of industry." 



[us] 



CHAPTER XVIII 

"democratization of industry." "recogni- 
tion OF THE UNION." " THE CLOSED SHOP " 

President Wilson's Labor message to Congress 
last October or November calls upon it to "bring 
about a genuine democratization of industry, based 
upon the full recognition of the right of those who 
work, in whatever rank, to participate in some or- 
ganic way in every decision which directly affects 
their welfare." 

I suppose no language of President Wilson ever 
reveals or is intended to reveal an exact meaning, 
but he clearly implies that the "right" referred to, 
whatever it may be, is not now fully recognized, pre- 
sumably by employers. Elsewhere in the same mes- 
sage he says, "An employee whose industrial life is 
hedged about by hard and unjust conditions, which 
he did not create and over which he has no control, 
lacks that fine spirit of enthusiasm and voluntary 
effort which are the necessary ingredients of a great 
producing entity." Here again he implies that the 
American employee is "hedged about by hard and 
unjust conditions," etc. There are some two thou- 
sand words of like camouflage in that message, con- 
taining not one line that Congress could act on, 
probably meant for perusal elsewhere. 

As a matter of fact, the little tales of the preced- 
ing chapter, of the typewriter strike, the Gary strike, 
of every one of the seventy thousand strikes, and 
the thirty-four thousand unions organized by Messrs. 

[144] 



DEMOCRATIZATION. RECOGNITION 

Gompers & Company, during the last forty years, 
give the direct lie to the President's implications. 
Every worker concerned in all that colossal record 
not only asserted u the right to participate," but 
actually participated in some organic way in every 
decision that directly affected his welfare. That 
right was established, and recognized, in the very fact 
that the man joined the union and struck. He and 
his union actually made every decision which directly 
affected their welfare, by accepting or rejecting the 
proposals offered by whomsoever it might concern. 
If rejected, there was an end of them; if accepted, 
there was an end of discussion; if modified, there 
was mutual agreement. In every case there was 
entire recognition. 

If the President's nebulous verbiage means, as he 
probably meant his labor friends to infer, that Con- 
gress shall ordain that "Organized Labor" shall 
have the right not only to accept or reject proposals 
of employment, but also to dictate their terms, and 
compel employers to offer them as dictated, for 
acceptance or rejection, or even to discuss them, he 
is proposing to Congress not a " democratization of 
industry," but a tyranny of Labor, to which no human 
power can force employers to submit. "You can 
lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." 

To sum up the situation: if "democratization of 
industry" means merely that laborers are to have 
a say as to employment contracts, whether unionized 
or not, they assuredly have an absolutely decisive 
say now. If it means that employers are to have no 
say as to such contracts, and that Labor unions shall 
determine them for both sides, then Labor must 
wade into politics up to the neck, for only Govern- 
ment makes such contracts. There will be no other 
employer. 

[145] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

If the President merely means that employers 
should invite the frequent and friendly conference of 
employees, by their representatives or direct, with 
shop managers, as is becoming more and more the 
fashion in large works, or should stimulate them to 
active interest in better conditions and growing pro- 
duction by such inducements as stock purchases, 
bonuses, profit sharing, and the like, then his "new 
relation between labor and capital " is but a very old 
familiar story, demanding no Congressional action 
whatsoever. In that case, however, as Mr. Gompers 
and his associates are dead set against every such 
device for effecting close and friendly team work 
between employer and employee, you, gentlemen of 
the press, may size up "democratization of industry" 
as just "sounding brass and tinkling cymbals" for 
the 1920 band wagon, and spell it Democratization! 

The slogan "democratize industry," with its ob- 
verse " down with autocracy," is symptomatic of 
" collectivitis," started by Mr. Gompers and his 
friends to attract political support to Organized 
Labor; caught at by President Wilson as a useful, 
sounding phrase; and of wondrous appeal to sociolo- 
gists who love to consider humanity in the mass, and 
hate to bother with the individual human being. If 
it means anything, — to come down to a concrete case, 
as I really must do in order to think concretely, 
though with apologies to all collectivists for approach- 
ing the actual — "democratization" signifies that 
the United States Steel Corporation, for instance, 
should let the manufacturing end, at least, of its 
business be run by a sort of town meeting of its 
23 8,000 employees ; or, let me say, to make the propo- 
sition as nearly practical as possible, that operation 
of each of the corporation's numerous plants should 
be regulated by town meeting of its own employees 

[146] 



DEMOCRATIZATION. RECOGNITION 

(of course with due regard to the feelings of em- 
ployees of other plants), or by "representatives of 
their own choosing," alias the A. F. L. How does 
the proposition strike you, gentlemen of the press? 

Do you not recognize that, as centuries of ex- 
perience have shown, there can be but one head, 
one controlling brain, to a living organism, that co- 
ordinates the movements of its hands, feet, mouth, 
wings, beak, claws, so that they work with and not 
against each other? Just so a single controlling in- 
telligence is necessary to coordinate the movements 
of many men when organized for a common pur- 
pose. Especially is this true of laboring men, who 
have to take work from others because they have 
not brains to lay it out for themselves. The whole 
science of modern industry, against which under the 
pseudonym of Capital Mr. Gompers, the President, 
and our collectivists are for various reasons arrayed, 
consists in getting good work out of merely average 
or even stupid men. More explicitly, efficient organ- 
ization of industry means gathering together enough 
average workers to form an adequate unit, and co- 
ordinating their labor under a single mind; which 
must be far enough above average to be capable of 
devising a routine which the average man can keep 
up to with good total results. 

The essence of successful routine is unity of intel- 
ligent control. Even if workers were all brainy 
enough to take part in control (when they are, they 
generally do so as foremen, superintendents, and not 
seldom eventual owners), the old couplet would hold 
good: 

11 Many men of many minds; many birds of many kinds; 
Many fishes in the sea; many men that don't agree." 

On the other hand, if they are not brainy, merely 
average, we do not need to speculate on what might 

[147] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

be voted by many men of no minds. No capitalist 
would put a penny into their employment in " democ- 
ratized industry/' and the contingency would never 
arise. 

I have studied the records of some five hundred 
profit-sharing plans, most of them failures, so far. 
The most notable instance of real democratization of 
industry that has come to my notice is the establish- 
ment of Godin, of Guise in France, long before the 
great war. In his lifetime Godin had arranged a 
system of division of profits remaining after paying 
all manufacturing costs, including the wages of labor 
at going rates, and what he called the wages (namely, 
interest at five per cent) of capital. The residue of 
net receipts remaining, after deducting certain per- 
centages for depreciation, invention, management, 
and education, were divided between labor and capi- 
tal in proportion to the "wage" of both, already 
paid as above. The share accruing to labor was not 
paid in cash, but in shares in the concern bought at 
par from himself, or from any one who left the em- 
ployment of the concern. In this way the whole of 
the shares of the concern gradually passed from 
Godin and family into the ownership of the actual 
employees, and it became a true democracy. I have 
not heard what became of it during the war. It was 
in the fought-over district, and probably was looted 
by the Germans. You will note that Godin provided 
for invention, management, and education at the 
company's expense. 

An interesting move in industrial democracy has 
been made by one of the great rubber companies at 
Akron, I think the Goodyear, which has over eleven 
thousand laborer shareholders and maintains a 
"university" of over five thousand students from 
the company's working force. I have not the details, 

[148] 



DEMOCRATIZATION. RECOGNITION 

but mention it here as the real kind of foundation 
upon which democratization of industry can safely 
be built; of course by concerns that are big enough 
and prosperous enough to undertake so large an 
outside activity. There will not be many of them, 
and they cannot be created by law. 

When I hear my Cambridge sociologist friends, 
who never employed a laboring man in their lives, 
talk so glibly about the "new order" and "democ- 
ratization" in industry, I sigh for a breath of that 
old-fashioned virtue, obnoxious to President Wilson, 
called common sense; which might be defined " as a 
decent regard to the experience of mankind," if I 
may paraphrase the Declaration of Independence. 

There is nothing of a " new order" in the art of 
managing men by treating them as human beings; 
it is at least as old as Socrates' precepts to Xenophon 
on the qualifications of a commander. " Knowing 
how to get good work out of men" has been a fa- 
miliar phrase, and a prime recommendation for an 
industrial manager for several generations in Amer- 
ican industry. It is true that until the trades-unions 
developed their vast machinery for creating indus- 
trial "unrest" there was no occasion for developing 
counter machinery, formally and specifically to make 
head against labor trouble and inefficiency. There 
certainly is such occasion now, but that is no reason 
why " society" should lose all sense of proportion in 
considering it, or indeed should worry over it at all. 
It can with perfect safety and propriety be left to 
the parties concerned to work out, in conformity with 
the organic law that governs us all, and with common 
sense. 

A laborer is usually a man who undertakes to do 
a certain thing for a certain other man, and for cer- 
tain pay, because he lacks the mind, the will, the 

[i49] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

thrift, the courage, the poise, or some other essen- 
tial gift, physical or mental, to create work for him- 
self. He should be absolutely free under the law to 
accept or refuse the work and pay; but if he accepts 
one and takes the other, he should be absolutely 
bound under the law to do his task, for the period 
of his agreement. There can be no impairment of 
the obligation of contract, under our Constitution. 
Whether there be one or one thousand of him, there 
is no reason in law or morals why he should have a 
vote as to what the work which he has contracted 
to do should be ; or why, when, or where it should be 
done, or who should do it, other than himself. He 
has had his vote, and cast it when he took his job. If 
he is unhappy in it, he can always quit, after filling 
his contract. So much for the law and the morals of 
the case. 

As for the reason and common sense of it, the fact 
that there are many, many millions of laboring men, 
and that they always were, and most of them will 
always remain, laboring men, despite the brilliant re- 
wards that wait upon the ability to manage, ought to 
convince our sociologists, inexperienced as they are 
in practical organization, that the great mass of 
laborers are simply incompetent to manage, not fit 
to vote on the complex questions which daily present 
themselves for immediate reply, in modern industry. 
All the rosy ideals of intelligent cooperation of an 
educated and interested working force smash head-on 
when tested, as in the Youngstown case elsewhere 
cited, into the average mentality of the average 
wageworker; just as, and ten times more than, the 
" initiative, referendum and recall" smash head-on 
when tried out, into the dullness and indifference of 
the average voter. The same amiable type of mind 
that dreams of "democratization" probably viewed 

[150] 



DEMOCRATIZATION. RECOGNITION 

with complacency the referendum here in Massa- 
chusetts at the last election, on the " initiative and 
referendum" itself; perhaps the most important 
referendum ever staged anywhere, as it established 
all future referenda for all time in this great state. 
It was adopted, but by a minute majority of the vote 
of perhaps a quarter of the voters who voted for 
the candidates for Governor; that is, by so insignifi- 
cant a fraction of the entire Massachusetts electorate 
as to make the whole theory of the measure utterly 
ridiculous. The voters evidently did not care " a 
tinker" about it, but I think the Hearst papers did. 
I have not yet heard that our theorists propose to 
democratize Harvard University and the public 
schools, by ordaining that the students and school 
children shall elect " representatives of their own 
choosing" to confer with the overseers and faculty, 
or the school boards, as to who shall teach them, 
what they shall be taught, what their hours and terms 
shall be, who shall finance, build, and organize the 
great educational institutions to which Dr. Eliot and 
Dr. Lowell, Horace Mann and so many able and un- 
selfish men have given their lives. But the time is 
ripe for such a proposition. Our idealist friends 
might as well make it, and would never have a better 
chance to put it through. It is always easier to throw 
away the taxpayer's money than that of the stock- 
holders of a soulless corporation; for the reason that 
when stockholders see that the law, for instance, is 
going to make ducks and drakes of their ill-gotten 
gains, they hold them back, and will no longer put 
them at the mercy of the law. Witness the present 
unhappy situation of the railroads, for example. If 
our sociologists really wish to put the brakes on 
production, and stop the making and investing of 
wealth in America, they can hardly find a quicker 

[151] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

way to do so than compulsory " democratization of 
industry." 

For the hundredth time let me repeat, that entirely 
decentralized, independent, and voluntary action by 
the responsible owners and managers of each under- 
taking is the only safe and wise foundation for its 
success; and that its success is the paramount factor 
in the welfare of its employees, whether it leads 
toward or away from " democratization." 

While discussing Organized Labor's catch phrases, 
it would be well to clarify our ideas a little on the 
meaning of two of them, which are generally mis- 
understood by thousands of men and women of heart 
and conscience, especially by the clergy, to wit: " Rec- 
ognition of the Union," and the " Closed Shop." 
The union leaders sometimes call the latter the 
"Free Shop," — free of non-union labor, that is. 

An association of clergymen, the Inter-Church In- 
dustrial Conference (the name may be incorrect), 
whose secretary is a Dr. Poling, has just formulated 
a report on industrial relations and remedies that 
suggests at first the utterance of an official of an 
imaginary clergyman's union affiliated with the Fed- 
eration of Labor. Its perfectly innocent acceptance 
of the slogans and economics of trades-unionism, of 
the villainy and greed of capital, and the righteous- 
ness of Organized Labor, saddens a man who, like 
myself, is a descendant of a long line of clergymen, 
and a sincere believer in them, their lives and their 
work. The Parable of the Unjust Steward says 
truly enough that "the children of this world are 
in their generation wiser than the children of light." 
Fortunately for the latter and for all of us, they can 
and do depend upon the conscience and the constant 
material support of the very men whom they so 
fluently condemn, for the safe existence of their 

[152] 



DEMOCRATIZATION. RECOGNITION 

churches and their noble charities. But they cer- 
tainly do not comprehend the practical game played 
by" Labor.'/ # . "' 

" Recognition of the Union," means to many good 
Christians something like good manners, or human 
courtesy, to workingmen ; and refusal to "recognize" 
is stigmatized as autocratic hauteur, as contemptuous 
disregard of the " aspirations of labor." It is 
nothing of the kind. "Recognition" of organized 
labor and the " closed shop " are identical, and 
mean that the employer enters regularly into con- 
tract with the unions through their officials, usually 
in writing, which binds the former to employ labor 
only through the latter, and to close the shop to the 
non-union man. No matter how badly a non-union 
man needs work, or how good a workman he is, or 
how much the employer wants to hire him, he can 
get employment in that shop only by first joining the 
local union of his craft, signing its constitution, sub- 
mitting to the authority of its officers, and most im- 
portant of all, paying the initiation fee and dues 
involved. Then only a union card is issued to him, 
and he can get a job in a closed shop. 

Many thousands of laboring men prefer their in- 
dependence, and refuse to be held up for union dues. 
Many hundreds of employers, though the majority 
are indifferent, refuse to contract for the closed shop ; 
some as a mere matter of business policy, but many 
more, in my observation, because they refuse to be- 
tray the constitutional right of every man, employer 
or laborer, to hire or work without the dictation of 
any other man or group of men. One of the largest 
employers in Boston lately said to me, that he would 
lose every dollar he had invested, and if necessary 
would die for the " open shop," as a true American. 
He employs thousands of men without regard to 

[153] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

union or non-union membership. My own feeling 
was just the same when I was an employer, that I 
would never be party to taking advantage of the 
necessity of a workingman, to compel him to pay 
tribute to a union, in order to qualify for employ- 
ment in my shop. I have shown elsewhere how in 
the course of a strike in my own factory we dis- 
covered a strong preference among workers in Chi- 
cago for the strictly non-union shop. The sentiment 
for liberty prevailed. 

Nevertheless, it is after all a matter of business; 
if an employer thinks it to his business interest to 
close his shop to non-union labor, or to union labor, 
or to maintain an open shop to both, he has an 
absolute right to do so, and to put sentiment aside. 
I cannot believe, however, that any intelligent and 
conscientious clergyman, who ought by virtue of his 
profession to put sentiment ahead of business con- 
siderations, would, if he understood the matter, 
favor forcing the free workman against his will to 
wear the collar or pay the tribute decreed for him 
by the local union. Our courts of highest resort have 
uniformly restrained the attempt to monopolize 
labor by virtue of "collective bargaining" and the 
" closed shop," as an invasion of constitutional right. 
I am glad to accept Judge Gary's maintenance of the 
open shop in the great steel industry, as dictated by 
love of American freedom as well as sound business 
judgment. I would urge the pulpit not ignorantly 
to condemn the law and the bench, but to study with 
open mind as well as open heart the intent and the 
result of bringing all industry within the grasp of a 
labor autocracy, the dream of Organized Labor. 



[i54] 



CHAPTER XIX 

PROFIT SHARING 

In passing it may be worth while to say a word 
about profit sharing, which Gompers and Labor care 
nothing about, — in fact oppose, — but which seems 
to have great fascination for my conscientious Cam- 
bridge friends who are plagued by the profits of the 
Rockefellers. 

There are three fundamental difficulties in carry- 
ing profits into compensation of Labor, viz. : 

i. Profits are properly the reward of skilled manage- 
ment; or of capital saved and risked, i.e., of past thrift and 
courage; they are very remotely dependent on the future 
exertions of this or that laborer, who saves and risks noth- 
ing, and whose best efforts may be nullified by fault of 
other workmen or other departments in production; or by 
general trade conditions entirely outside of his vision or 
control. 

2. An ordinary profit of five to ten per cent which is 
considered reasonable for capital is entirely too small to in- 
terest labor; especially coming as it does, but once or twice 
a year. Labor does not understand profit and loss accounts, 
or want to wait till the end of the year. What it can under- 
stand, and usually goes for, is a definite increase of wages, 
ten to twenty per cent, payable every Saturday night, in no 
way dependent upon what the stockholder gets. 

3. There are frequently no profits to share, nothing but 
losses. Under the common law, if you share my profits you 
are ipso facto bound also to share my losses; to take good 
money out of your pocket to pay your share of my debts, 
if I cannot pay them. Like every provision of the common 

[155] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

law, the growth of many ages of administration of justice, 
this particular provision is logically and morally right; but 
my Cambridge friends seem to feel that labor should share 
only profits j not losses; while to labor leaders, the bare idea 
of standing a loss would be what is called a " scream." One 
of Mr. Gompers' fiercest fights is against holding labor 
liable for anything whatever in the way of money, except 
union dues. 

Many attempts at general profit sharing have been 
made in the United States and in Europe. About 
four fifths of them have failed, and but few have 
been even fairly successful. Labor is pleased when 
profits and shares coming to itself are large; but sus- 
picious and discontented if small or lacking. Shar- 
ing of losses by labor is unknown. 

Add to the foregoing objections Mr. Gompers' 
vigorous opposition, and there remains little to say 
in favor of sharing profits with labor as extra com- 
pensation for stimulating good work. The more 
direct stimulus of piecework pay, premium, or bonus 
on increased production, payable weekly — also op- 
posed by Mr. Gompers — is far better and more 
logical. Each man then benefits by his own good 
work, even though some other man's default affects 
results and cuts down the general profit. 

Nothing but the highest praise can be given to the 
United States Steel Corporation's plan of helping its 
employees to buy shares of the company's stock, 
guaranteeing them against loss, and stimulating them 
to save — thus making themselves capitalists, and 
real investors, genuine partners, in their own busi- 
ness. That is a constructive mode of securing loyal 
and enthusiastic work for the company; and the pro- 
motion of industrial peace, which is the deadliest 
possible " barrage" against the rush of Mr. Gom- 
pers' forces. It goes without saying that he de- 

[156] 



PROFIT SHARING 

nounces it in the most unmeasured way as capitalistic 
corruption of Labor. 

There are many other concerns with profit-sharing 
plans in operation, of which one can say nothing but 
good. One general observation is, however, unde- 
niably true, viz. : that no panacea, no general cure 
for " Labor Unrest," can be prescribed in the form 
of profit sharing. Labor itself has not ordinarily — 
no matter what happens in sporadic cases — shown 
the ability or the will to advise or cooperate in such 
long-drawn and deferred undertakings, while as 
for Capital, each enterprise with its peculiar condi- 
tions must be a law unto its owners, how to stimulate 
and compensate its people. 

That remarkable man, Henry Ford, has devised 
a powerful appeal to his 45,000 men, which he calls 
bonus, investment, and profit sharing. The last two 
words seem to me a misnomer, as the payment to 
employees called profit sharing is apparently not in 
any way connected with or dependent on amount of 
profit realized by the Ford Motor Company; but is 
a flat, additional rate per hour above the regular pay 
rate, given to men with the latter every week, pro- 
vided they show themselves good workmen, good 
family men, and good citizens. If they do not show 
themselves such after six months, they are dropped 
altogether from the company pay roll. Besides this 
so-called " profit share " Mr. Ford pays his men a 
" bonus " that seems to run from three to ten per cent 
of annual wage, payable at end of year; and he helps 
them to buy homes, invest, etc. Taken all together, 
the high pay and the strong inducement offered by 
the profit and bonus plan for industry, thrift, and 
decency since 191 2 have transformed Mr. Ford's 
force within a very few years from a most extraor- 
dinarily unstable and floating crowd to a compara- 

[157] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

tively fixed, loyal, happy, and exceedingly efficient 
body of high-grade workers. 

The Ford booklets state that in 19 13, in order 
to maintain an average force of 13,624 men, they 
hired 5 2,445 men and 50,448 quit — showing a labor 
" turnover" of 370 per cent; a ratio quite unheard 
of elsewhere among my acquaintance. By 19 15, in 
order to maintain an average force of 18,028 men, 
they hired 14,074 and 2921 quit; reducing labor 
turnover to 1 6 per cent. By 1 9 1 8 , however, to main- 
tain 31,911 they hired 26,470 and 16,198 quit — 
the turnover rising again to 44 per cent; which, by 
the way, still seemed huge to me, until 1 was told 
recently that it averages 100 per cent in large in- 
dustries nowadays. 

Returning to 19 12 (when Mr. Ford's experiment 
in the "business of making men" as a primary 7 
and automobiles as a by-product first took shape), 
two things are to be noted: first, that he was already 
as he has been ever since, the most extraordinary 
"profiteer" in the history of business. He made 
and sold that year, only ten years after commencing 
business, over 168,000 cars, at a profit said to be 
$100 each, say $17,000,000. He was already rich 
beyond the dreams of avarice when — and as natu- 
rally happened, not till then — his attention was di- 
rected, as he frankly says, to the very 7 bad business 
management indicated by the enormous "labor turn- 
over" noted above. As one of the ablest business 
men in history, he put his mind to the best method 
of handling his human factor in production as skill- 
fully as he was already handling his raw-material fac- 
tors. He makes no claim for other motive than that 
of good business: and that motive is certainly justi- 
fied by results. For in 19 13 his 13,000 men made 
168,000 cars, or nearly 13 cars per man; while in 

[158] 



PROFIT SHARING 

1917, 35,606 men made over 700,000 cars, or 20 
cars per man. What the more recent record is I do 
not know; but I imagine that the Ford factories have 
by this time recovered from the dislocation of tak- 
ing on war production of " Eagles, " etc., and are 
swinging along to yet more astonishing results. The 
last published report of profits that I recall showed 
over sixty million dollars, after paying the extraor- 
dinary wages noted above. In furnishing me the 
data utilized above (for which let me acknowledge 
gratefully the courtesy of Mr. Squier of the Ford 
" Department of Education " ) , they remarked, in an- 
swer to my question as to current trouble, if any, with 
union labor — " Unionism has not been an issue with 
us at any time. We have always paid at least the 
equal of the union rates, and in most cases consider- 
ably better." 

Here you have the whole psychology — as our 
orators love to call it — of labor relations in a nut- 
shell. Mr. Ford makes his job so profitable and 
attractive that no oratory of labor demagogues can 
induce his men to imitate the dog in Esop's fable, 
that dropped the bone out of his mouth while snap- 
ping at its double, reflected in the water beneath 
him. 

The Steel Corporation is doing much the same, 
perhaps not quite as lavishly, as its profits are not 
so lavish : and so are other great employers all over 
the country. Perhaps the best job that Organized 
Labor has done — though not at all in the way it 
intended, that now it bitterly opposes — is forcing 
the captains of industry to put their minds to 
"making men" out of human beings, as well as 
"mere commodities of commerce" out of their 
labor. It is evident that Mr. Henry Ford has be- 
come perhaps more interested in the former than in 

[159] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

the latter; and it must indeed be a genuine delight 
to him to make his own success the solid and 
enduring foundation on which thousands of live 
Americans can build their own happy lives, and the 
inspiration of their self-development. May he have 
better luck in converting them than he did with 
the Kaiser; and may he get more generous verdict 
from the press generally than from the Chicago 
Tribune. There is certainly nothing small about his 
conceptions, whether wise or otherwise. 

In spite of his enormous wealth and success there 
seem to be few who grudge Mr. Ford his prosperity. 
Let us hope there are no Bolshevists among his fifty 
thousand men to take his wages, but meantime 
plan to apply to his great creations, soon or late, 
their creed of "Rob the robbers; steal from those 
who stole." 

Before leaving this matter, however, let me once 
more call your attention, gentlemen of the press, to 
the fact that for such pay and such help as the Ford 
Company, the Steel Corporation, and other great 
employers here and abroad, are successfully giving 
their employees, the one essential prerequisite is that 
the concerns themselves must be great, and must 
make much money. "Profiteering" — so called — 
is the foundation of "Social Justice" ; if by the latter 
phrase we mean, as we ought to mean, the largest 
fair reward of all men, even the humblest, weak- 
est, and stupidest, proportionate to their contribu- 
tion to the common prosperity. If and when the 
Ford Motor Co. and United States Steel Corp'n 
become unprofitable — if that time ever comes — 
their employees will surely suffer with their owners! 
How, for instance, would the 119,347 corporations 
out of 351.426 that reported to the income tax officers 
a deficit for 191 7, share profits with their men? And 

[160] 



PROFIT SHARING 

what would our sociologists consider Social Justice to 
the latter to require in the way of wages? I pause 
for their reply ! 

Let me also warn you, meantime, against at- 
tempting by Wilsonian democratization, or Gom- 
persian centralization of control, or by any other 
interference with industrial freedom, to compel all 
employers to follow Henry Ford or Lord Lever- 
hulme, or any other able man who is applying good 
engineering to the labor problem. There are very 
few great employers — very few " profiteers, " in 
American industry. Out of some 450,000 indus- 
trial concerns only two per cent, or thereabouts, some 
10,000 to 12,000, employ over 250 men. The large 
employers, especially if they "profiteer," can and 
will more and more take care of their men and 
themselves, as Ford is doing. But I urge you to 
deprecate handing over the little fellows, bound hand 
and foot by legislation, to the tender mercies of Or- 
ganized Labor. Collectively, they employ the great 
mass of our laboring population; yet individually 
they could never cope with such a labor autocracy 
as Mr. Gompers has built up and proposes by legal- 
ized monopoly and coercion indefinitely to enlarge. 
Give them their chance, free operation of the law of 
supply and demand, a fair field and no favor ; if you 
wish them to prosper and pay their labor, the bulk 
of all our labor, regularly and well. I am speaking 
not for them so much as for the whole community; 
for America. 

Decentralization, and limitation of trades-union- 
ism to the shop, where the men are employed, would 
free the small employer from the labor troubles of 
all other concerns ; and yet would leave his own men 
free to protect their own local interests as against 
him by organizing, striking, etc., as at present. At 

[ 161 ] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

the same time, the removal of the constant tempta- 
tion to show power which is inseparable from all 
irresponsible autocracies — as is abundantly proved 
by the Carroll Wright Report — would probably re- 
duce the 90 per cent rates of strikes called by Or- 
ganized Labor to, say, 10 per cent; which, with the 
10 per cent called by unorganized labor, would cut 
down the grand total of all strikes to, say, 20 per 
cent, or one fifth of the ratio recorded by Mr. 
Wright. 

Decentralization would practically eliminate labor 
trouble as a serious factor against production. Judg- 
ing from my personal experience as a small em- 
ployer, however, the general introduction of strike 
insurance, and adoption of time contracts guaran- 
teed by forfeitable accumulations, would serve every 
purpose; even without legislation to decentralize 
labor control. 

In connection with or in commentary on Henry 
Ford's profit-sharing and bonus plan, let me cite also 
the experience of another motor company, also of 
Detroit, a near neighbor of the Ford Company, and 
maker of a low-priced car perhaps the nearest com- 
petitor in price and grade to the Ford car. The 
concern has never had the huge financial success of 
the Ford, though making and selling many cars. The 
management write me as follows : " We do not no- 
tice any appreciable effect on our labor in Detroit 
on account of the Ford Company's high wage and 
profit-sharing policy. When we get down to actual 
figures we are paying equivalent wages, and there 
appears to be no influence from the Ford policy. It 
actually yields their men no more than the amount 
realized by our men of like classification. . . . We 
should say that the wages we are paying are the re- 
sult of competition with industrial Detroit gener- 

[162] 



PROFIT SHARING 

ally rather than with Ford. To some extent Ford 
has first pick of labor, but this is rather on account 
of a little greater continuity of employment. We do 
not believe Ford's wages give any actual advantage 
in output — to be attributed more to standard- 
ized repetitive operations in great number, continu- 
ing indefinitely. Fords are no more free from 
strikes than we are, and so far as we can find out 
there is no discontent among our men on account of 
Ford policies, which are upheld by the press as ideal 
conditions." 

Well, as all through this investigation, doctors 
disagree. There is evidently no hard and fast rule 
for all concerns. This company's owners have never 
had a dividend; there would be no earthly " Social 
Justice " in asking them to parallel Henry Ford's 
treatment of his men; yet they have to do just as well 
by them, apparently. Great is the law of supply and 
demand for the workingman in Detroit; and every- 
where else. 

Note. As this book goes to press, an important profit-shar- 
ing plan, with distribution of stock among employees, is an- 
nounced by the great International Harvester Company — 
the " Harvester Trust." Its details are lacking, but it 
seems to promise division of profits in excess of 7 per cent on 
Capital between the latter and labor, in the ratio of 40 per 
cent to capital and 60 per cent to labor. The plan appar- 
ently " democratizes " the industry only to the extent that 
labor-shares are clothed with voting power and representation 
in the directorate. I imagine that the control of the business 
and policy of the company will remain — and as it ought to 
remain for the interest of all concerned — with the investor- 
shares. 



[163] 



CHAPTER XX 

GOMPERS VS. LENINE AND DEBS 

An officer of the National Civic Federation (of 
which the vice presidency has been a masterpiece of 
camouflage by Mr. Gompers) sent me not long since 
a clipping from the New York Times of Novem- 
ber 4, quoting Lieutenant Kliefoth, Assistant United 
States Military Attache in Russia, as saying that the 
Bolsheviki are bitter foes of legitimate trade-unions, 
and that if the Soviet form of government were in- 
troduced in the United States the first labor leader 
to be killed would be Samuel Gompers. 

Lieutenant Kliefoth may well be quite right. Mr. 
Gompers certainly has thrown his great influence 
among workingmen directly against Bolshevism, 
Anarchy, and State Socialism, everywhere and al- 
ways. He may well be most obnoxious to all three 
elements. I cannot see, however, that his hostility 
arises from the fact that they all propose to "steal 
from those who stole," or plunder the rich; but exists 
because they would establish autocracy not of Labor, 
but of the proletariat. His own program differs 
from theirs only in degree, not in kind or principle. 
The Anarchist would individually murder and plun- 
der brains — that is, the rich — and take his chances 
on what might come after; the Bolshevist or Prole- 
tariat, alias the leaders in power, would collec- 
tively rob and murder brains, and take the chances 
after; the State Socialist would expropriate (he 
would not say rob) riches, and commandeer brains, 

[164] 



GOMPERS vs. LENINE 

merely abolishing profits, and take future chances. 
Mr. Gompers would leave riches to the ownership 
and care of brains and let Labor "swipe" all the 
profits. Either way, poor brains, that creates all the 
riches and directs all the useful employment thereof, 
is "the goat." It makes no difference to the owner 
whether Lenine and Trotsky, Haywood or Debs, 
takes all their capital; or Gompers takes all their 
profits ; either way it is a case of Love's Labor Lost. 

On the other hand it makes a lot of difference to 
Mr. Gompers whether those other fellows take all 
the capital and abolish all the profits; or instead 
the burden of capital is left where it lies, while his 
own Federation and Brotherhoods absorb and squan- 
der all profits themselves. The question with him 
is not so much whether capital or profits shall be 
stolen, as it is how best to do the stealing and who 
shall get the stolen goods. 

It is perfectly clear that Anarchy and Organization 
of Labor — or of anything else — cannot coexist. 
One or other must disappear. For it is evident 
that Messrs. Lenine and Gompers cannot both dic- 
tate the lives and industry of the same workers; in 
one case as Soviet constituents and the other as 
organized laborers. One or other must go. Like- 
wise, in a Socialistic state, where the state is sole 
owner and employer, the Gompers' Federation could 
not fight the state, being a small minority, but must 
inevitably be swallowed up in the state. 

As Mr. Gompers is, and has reason to be, per- 
fectly satisfied with his present job as President of 
the A. F. L., what could or ought he to do but fight 
every suggestion of Anarchism or Bolshevism or 
Socialism? Do not, however, gentlemen of the 
press, attribute his opposition to these attacks on our 
form of government to any especial reverence for 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

American Constitutional guarantees of liberty or 
property right. He has never evidenced any such 
feeling. That perfectly honest, thrifty, and pros- 
perous citizens should be so naive as to rely on him 
for protection against spoliation of what they have 
gathered, reminds one of the story of Little Red 
Riding Hood and her excellent grandmother — the 
wolf. 

Mr. Gompers is widely proclaimed in the press, 
and indeed proclaims himself, as the great conserva- 
tive force in labor politics; as against the red radicals 
who would control it. Well, he is certainly conserva- 
tive as against them; but of his own power and the 
personal control of his great organization, merely; 
neither of which he has the least intention to hand 
over to anybody. When it comes to conservation 
of anything else — for instance, of the rights either 
of the non-union man, the capitalist, or the public — 
he ignores or denies them as contemptuously as 
Lenine or Trotzky, Haywood or Debs. His latest 
utterance is a "gem of purest ray serene" — "The 
workers will not sacrifice human progress for an 
abstraction which is called the public welfare." 
Even Karl Marx never rose to such a pinnacle of 
"abstraction!" (The italics above are mine.) 



[166] 



CHAPTER XXI 

DEMAGOGY AND BUREAUCRACY. LEAGUE 
OF NATIONS 

My Cambridge idealist friends have seized with 
avidity upon President Wilson's carefully vague 
catch phrases, " The new order," " A new relation- 
ship between Capital and Labor," etc.; also on 
the proposition that business should be done for 
"service" and not for "profit" — voiced I think by 
the President, but perhaps by some other idealist. 
In his labor message to Congress he further says, 
" Return to the old standards of wage and industry 
in employment is unthinkable"; and "To analyze 
the particulars in the demands of labor, is to admit 
the justice of their complaint, in many matters that 
lie at their base. The workman demands an ade- 
quate wage, sufficient to permit him to live in com- 
fort, unhampered by the fear of poverty and want 
in his old age." He omits, however, to note that the 
workman usually gets his demand. 

Pygmy minds like my own search in vain through 
the presidential utterances to find out just what " The 
new order" and the "new relationship between 
Capital and Labor" are to be; and we ask too just 
why return to the old standards of wage and industry 
in employment is "unthinkable." Under the old 
standards our beloved country has enjoyed a century 
of prosperity unparalleled in human history, with 
health and comfort of the industrial classes (our rich 
being no better off than rich men everywhere) that 
so far surpassed those of other countries as to bring 

[167] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

a flood of immigrants therefrom to our happy shores. 
Neither the io-hour work day, nor the "hard and 
unjust conditions " which President Wilson conjures 
up from his inner consciousness as " hedging labor 
about," have killed off our working people, or 
stopped the growth of our population, especially in 
the industrial centers. The efficiency and produc- 
tivity of our labor was ioo per cent in the '8o's com- 
pared with 66 per cent today; and abundance of the 
necessaries of life, with consequent low cost of living, 
made their old 1880 standard of wages go farther 
than the present standard, — two and a half times 
higher; at least so declare the labor leaders! To 
be sure, that declaration is not quite true — they are 
not sticklers for exactness — for prices of commodi- 
ties are only about two times as high as in 1880. As 
a matter of fact wages everywhere in this world 
have increased faster than prices of commodities. 
Thanks to enormous improvements in machinery 
and transportation, to new invention and discov- 
ery, — and in spite of organized labor's systematic 
and powerful obstruction, — human productivity has 
hugely increased per capita in capitalistic countries; 
and an increasing surplus earning power has accrued 
to workingmen. In this country — I do not attempt 
to speak for foreign countries — this surplus is re- 
flected in huge savings banks and life insurance re- 
serves belonging to laborers, in ownership of hun- 
dreds of thousands of homes ; but most of all, alas ! in 
wasteful squandering of good money. This extrava- 
gance is a matter of common knowledge, known to 
every shopkeeper and manufacturer, denounced by 
every editor and preacher. 

Now it is quite true, that the extravagant spender 
never has enough; never receives " an adequate wage 
sufficient to permit him to live in comfort, unham- 

[168] 



DEMAGOGY AND BUREAUCRACY 

pered by the fear of poverty and want in his old 
age." But does the President point out that fact, 
or note the past and present extraordinary prosperity 
of our labor; does he urge hard work and efficiency 
and thrift, and denounce loafing, indolence and ex- 
travagance? No, not by a single word! He speaks 
only "to admit the justice" of labor's complaint. 

Again, my pygmy mind asks, " Of whom precisely 
does the President, does Organized Labor, demand 
a life of comfort and ample provision for old age? 
Of labor itself, by its own hard work and thrift? 
Not on your life! Of the President himself — he is 
well off — and his fellow idealists in Cambridge and 
elsewhere? Nay, nay. They bind great burdens, 
and lay them on other men's shoulders, but do not 
lift them themselves with so much as a finger. Well, 
then — of Rockefeller, Armour, and Gary? Yes, 
verily ! But how far would even their great fortunes 
go, and how long would they last, if only for their 
own hundreds of thousands of employees ? Perhaps, 
then, of " Society" in general? Yes, at last we have 
it: of everybody except the workers themselves — so 
our idealist President would probably say, with en- 
thusiasm. 

But who is "Society"? In a democracy, "So- 
ciety" must mean "Government": and one can see 
where the President will necessarily land, and evi- 
dently would like to land — in bureaucracy, and un- 
limited income taxation. Where the rest of us land 
is secondary. 

Take the past year as an illustration. Did the 
President, or for that matter did Congress, recognize 
the perfectly patent, world-wide causes of high 
prices; namely, shortage of labor, shortage of pro- 
duction and transportation, colossal destruction, 
coupled in this country with an orgy of spending 

[169] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

unheard-of wages? Did they admit the evident and 
inevitable effect of the old familiar law of supply 
and demand in raising prices? Did they make the 
first move to stimulate labor to overcome shortage 
by hard work, or urge the community to reduce ex- 
cessive demand by reducing excessive extravagance? 
Again the answer must be, " Not on your life." In- 
stead of denouncing indolence and extravagance, 
Congress ordains perfectly useless and enormously 
expensive investigations of the packers and the coal 
operators — whose results will be obsolete long be- 
fore obtained; while the President denounces " profit- 
eering" and asks Congress for $4,500,000 to pay 
lawyers and detectives to chase the law of supply and 
demand off the soil of the United States, and in that 
way reduce the " high cost of living." 

Well, the Attorney General has been busy ever 
since, spending those and other appropriations. His 
bureaucracy has grown like Jack's beanstalk, and our 
money has gone like water; but has the cost of sugar 
or coal, or milk or eggs, or anything else under the 
sun been reduced a cent's worth by the tomfoolery? 
A third time the slang reply, " Not on your life." 

In the future, as in the past, low prices will come 
only from production in excess of demand; and pro- 
duction will come only from abundant human labor, 
aided by brains and capital, put out for wages and 
profits. But why should labor exert itself to pro- 
duce, while the Clayton Act says ''don't work — com- 
bine; and hold up your employers for a good living " 
— or while the President says, "You toilers are doing 
altogether too much for your money. The rest of us 
are robbing you ! Sit tight, and I will build up a 
great centralized bureaucratic machinery, that will 
stand in with your great centralized strike machinery, 
to see that you boys have plenty to spend now, and 

[170] 



DEMAGOGY AND BUREAUCRACY 

are taken care of in your old age by your greedy 
employers; without bothering to work hard your- 
selves or save anything meantime." 

Or why should those who have saved in the past 
risk their savings, in hope of profit, in building or 
producing in the United States, when the President 
says to the crowd: " Damn these profiteers. They 
are going to take advantage of existing demand, are 
they? They are going to exploit the needs of the 
community and the world, by building homes to rent, 
or by making and selling necessities of life at enor- 
mous profit, are they? Well, just you watch me! 
/'ll see to it that they make nothing, and serve the 
world for the sake of service, not for profit. Con- 
found those packers ! Not content with selling meat 
so cheap that local producers cannot compete with 
them, they have the gall to do the same thing with 
fruits and groceries ! Watch my administration put 
them back where they belong. The American peo- 
ple is not going to trade with any big fellows, not 
under my administration, even if folks think they 
save money by doing so: it is not fair to the little 
fellows, and does not help the 1920 Campaign. 
Same thing with the Steel Corporation! The Su- 
preme Court can give that concern a clean bill of 
health as often as it likes; but while I control the 
Attorney General, he shall keep right on after them. 
The Department of Justice must spend its appropri- 
ations and more; or it would not be a government 
department, or serve my turn. I can point with 
pride to consistent hostility to useful industry on a 
great scale. Profiteers, take notice ! " 

And they will take notice too ! It is absolutely 
certain that productive industry will " mark time " 
until the presidential election is decided, and long 
afterwards, unless Washington abandons its past 

[171] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

and present game of clubbing every industry that 
dares show its head above the surface. High cost of 
living will not come down; industrial peace and pros- 
perity will not ensue; America will not seize the un- 
paralleled opportunity, existing as an aftermath of 
war, to serve the world out of its unequalled re- 
sources, at unheard-of profit; nothing will grow 
and overshadow us, except government, graft, and 
taxation. 

If the foregoing sounds extreme, just compare the 
following United States appropriations (in round 
millions) for 191 1 and 19 19: 

1911 1919 

Deficiencies Various Branches of 

Govt $23,000,000 $2,000,000 

Legisl. Exec, and Judicial Expenses 34,000,000 70,000,000 

Sundry Civil Expenses 106,000,000 2,012,000,000 

Army, Navy, Indians, Rivers, Har- 
bors, Forts 293,000,000 14,658,000,000 

Pensions — old wars, etc 156,000,000 220,000,000 

Consular and Diplomatic .... 4,000,000 8,000,000 

Dept. of Agriculture 13,000,000 28,000,000 

Dist. of Columbia 11,000,000 15,000,000 

Federal Cont. of Transportation 500,000,000 

Reclamation 20,000,000 

War Finance Corporation .... 500,000,000 

War and Other Expenses .... 4,315,000,000 

Food and Fuel Control 11,000,000 

Bonds of Foreign Goods Purchased 3,000,000,000 

Operation under Mineral Act . . 50,000,000 

Farm Loan Bonds 4,000,000 200,000,000 

9,000,000 

Relief and Miscellaneous .... $664,000,000 $25,598,000,000 

(Tabulation from New York World Almanac, 1920.) 

Gentlemen of the press, however unwilling our 
Cambridge and other idealists may be to trace the 
evolution of abstract democracy into concrete bureau- 
cracy, cannot you, as men accustomed to deal with the 
real in daily life, see plainly enough that nothing but 
useless and wasteful addition to the already colossal 

[172] 



DEMAGOGY AND BUREAUCRACY 

burdens of taxation can result from the proposition 
to create at Washington great centralized arbitra- 
tion and conciliation machinery, only to sit powerless 
and helpless in solemn conclave with Mr. Gompers' 
great centralized and powerful strike machinery? 
Have there not been strikes enough, and settlements 
enough, among the seventy-five thousand recorded by 
the Department of Commerce and Labor, to estab- 
lish the fact that all great strikes usually end piece- 
meal, locally; by final direct agreement between 
employer and employed? That intervention of cen- 
tralized union and arbitration conference committees 
merely tends to delay these ultimate settlements, even 
where regional arrangements are in force (as with 
the garment workers and coal miners), and hold 
back composition of local difficulties ? Recall to your 
memories any of the wide-spread labor wars, and 
see for yourselves how invariably great strikes break 
first here, then there ; and always end first where law 
and order are maintained and violence prevented. 
Can you not see that nothing but local conditions will 
in the long run prevail with both employer and em- 
ployee? that neither will long endure a general 
award of arbitrators that is locally and individually 
impracticable? Is it not clear that increasing inter- 
ference of government between Capital and Labor 
is due to the unwillingness of politicians to refer so 
many voters to the impartial arbitration of the law 
of supply and demand, just because that arbitration 
is impartial, and final; based on actual market con- 
ditions? Must it not be for unfair advantage that 
Labor turns to a political tribunal? Even so, why 
should the rest of us follow suit? If the new tribunal 
is to be impartial, its decrees must coincide with those 
of natural economic law. Why, then, constitute it 
at all? 

[i73] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

You will answer, perhaps : because its decrees will 
tend to create sound public opinion, and that public 
opinion finally prevails in labor wars; and the argu- 
ment has weight. But why not, while tackling the 
question, educate public opinion to the more direct 
and final conclusion that the law of supply and de- 
mand is the one cool, calm, eternal, omniscient, ever- 
present, and impartial arbiter; whose decisions, based 
on actual conditions, are bound to be obeyed and to 
do lasting justice. Moreover, it is automatic; needs 
no costly Bureau at Washington. 

The foregoing considerations apply an hundred- 
fold more strongly to the " General Conference and 
International Labor Office," called for by the League 
of Nations. There is provision for councils, at- 
tended by 2 government, I laborer, and i employer 
delegate — 4 in all — from each nation, each per- 
mitted to take with him 2 advisers, a delegation of 
12 in all, expenses paid by the state that sends them; 
and for a permanent Labor Office, and Labor News- 
paper, at the seat of the League of Nations, with 
a Director and Staff, all paid for by the League. 
(By the way, the cable dispatches a short time ago 
remarked that money provision for the League's 
current expenses had not yet been made, so the poor 
Labor Director could not draw his handsome salary 
as yet.) Well, labor leaders would indeed find it an 
agreeable function to voyage to Switzerland, as hon- 
orable delegates or advisers, at the expense of the 
United States government; there to consider the 
labor problems of the world. Still more agreeable 
would it be to become the most conspicuous person- 
ality in all the earth, in the eyes of Labor, the Chair- 
man of the Conference; or even second in line, the 
International Director (Mr. Gompers was slated 
for the first-named job, until our Senate broke away 

[174] 



DEMAGOGY AND BUREAUCRACY 

from the League of Nations). The blindest of us 
cannot fail to visualize luxurious journeys, dignified 
surroundings, interesting general discussions, easy, 
conspicuous, and well-paid jobs, — presumably for 
elderly labor leaders and politicians, in and about 
the International Labor Office at Geneva ; especially 
choice plums of bureaucracy, shaken from the po- 
litical tree by each administration. 

But — what once more staggers my pygmy mind is 
the query: " How is the American individual laborer, 
in practice, going to benefit by this colossal inter- 
national fake, any more than he now benefits by the 
A. F. L. ? That is to say, how can he benefit at all ? " 

The Lawrence mills, for instance, which suffered 
a bad strike two years ago, are just now (May 3, 
1920) threatened with a walkout of one hundred 
and twenty-five stationary engineers, which may 
throw out many thousands of mill hands and cause 
a general shutdown. If the United States were a 
party to the League of Nations, would its Labor 
Bureau attempt to handle such a case? If it did so, 
how long would the mill owners or the mill hands of 
Massachusetts abide by a decision of the Interna- 
national Labor Office at Geneva, say in this present 
emergency, that offended either one or the other? 
If the interest of the mill owners at Bradford, Eng- 
land, or Lisle, France, were to prolong the Lawrence 
strike, how would the American owners regard a 
decision so influenced by them? Is there the re- 
motest danger that either England or France would 
bring to bear, through Washington or the State 
House on Beacon Hill, an international boycott, or 
send cruisers to enforce compliance of mill owners 
or strikers at Lawrence; or if either should attempt 
to do so, that Governor Coolidge, or Senator Lodge, 
or the American people behind them, would stand it 

[175] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

for an hour? Would the Yankee Division ever cross 
the seas again to protect France against a general 
French railway strike, such as has been threatened 
for the last few days? Or would France either ask 
or consent to such an invasion? Merely to ask these 
questions is to answer them — a thousand times No! 

I suppose that Messrs. Lloyd George and Cle- 
menceau and Wilson promised to Messrs. Barnes, 
Henderson, Thomas, and Gompers, this League-of- 
Nations show, as part payment for the labor vote 
in their respective campaigns of 1916-1918 in- 
clusive; but why should any country thus pay party 
political debts ? You, gentlemen of the press, should 
read Mr. Andrew Furuseth's remarks opposing the 
Labor provisions of the League (Report A. F. L. 
19 1 9 Convention, page 401), where he says: "Who 
is to determine what is to be lawful in this case? 
Why — the International Super-Legislature, not you 
in the United States. . . . Since when has the 
A. F. L. gone on record . . . and set a minimum 
wage . . . by some one else, instead of having it 
set by themselves? ... It makes me shudder 1" 

So says one Labor leader! He agrees apparently 
with Senator Lodge. Do not you too, gentlemen, 
agree with both experts ? Are we not better off al- 
together without perfectly useless governmental 
labor meddling, domestic or foreign — without costly 
bureaucracy; the wasteful handmaid of demagogy, 
masking as humanitarianism? 

Mr. Furuseth need not have shuddered, by the way. 
Mr. Gompers promptly got up after him in the Con- 
vention, and explained just as Mr. Wilson explained, 
that the League had no teeth in it. " My friend 
Mr. Furuseth," he says, " puts great stress on the 
words ' lawful organizations,' and tries to leave the 
impression that this super-convention will determine 

[176] 



DEMAGOGY AND BUREAUCRACY 

what is lawful and what is not. Nothing is farther 
from the truth. Every country will determine for 
itself what is lawful and what is not." Precisely so! 
But in that case, why set up an international show at 
all? 

In a previous sentence Mr. Gompers gives one 
reason why. " For the first time in the history of the 
world," he says, "the nations of the world have 
written into a document that they agree that workers 
have a right to organize." We have seen before 
that Mr. Gompers enlarges the interpretation of 
that right to mean centralized national control; and 
now he would have world control. I suspect it is 
because he is conscious of the inherent weakness of 
the " right to organize," when it conflicts with the 
welfare of the community, that he so consistently 
seeks its political assertion and sanction at home and 
abroad. 



[i77] 



CHAPTER XXII 

CARROLL D. WRIGHT'S REPORT OF STRIKES 
AND LOCKOUTS 

The late Carroll D. Wright, while Commissioner 
of Labor, carefully tabulated the strikes and lock- 
outs from 1 88 1 to 1905. Since then his successors 
have not continued the same accurate analysis and 
classifications of causes and results: and totals for 
the last fifteen years must be guessed at more or less. 
From 1 88 1 to 1905 he recorded 36,557 strikes (of 
at least one day), throwing out of work 8,485,000 
hands for an average of 25.4 days, involving 181,- 
407 concerns; and 1546 lockouts, involving 18,547 
concerns and averaging S^ days' duration. Ninety 
per cent of the strikes, and substantially all of the 
lockouts, were caused by Organized Labor, which 
won, or partly won, 65 per cent of strikes declared, 
as against but 44 per cent won by unorganized labor. 
Employers won, or partly won, 68 per cent of the 
lockouts declared. Strikes succeeded as follows : For 
raised wages, 69 per cent; for shorter hours, 61 per 
cent; for recognition of unions, 57 per cent; against 
reduction of wages, 48 per cent; sympathetic strikes, 
23 per cent. 

Since 1905, the last fifteen years have seen about 
as many more strikes, — some 38,000, — (details 
not accurately tabulated by the union laborer who 
has meantime been at the head of the Department 
of Labor) as in the twenty-five years previous. 
Their causes and results are poorly analyzed; but 

[178] 



STATISTICS OF STRIKES 

seem not to differ materially from the Wright Statis- 
tical averages. 

The forty-year mass of information yielded is, 
however, enormous; and affords sound basis for in- 
dependent judgment as to the actual value and real 
accomplishment of Mr. Gompers' great work in Or- 
ganization of Labor. 

To begin with, if we figure on an average normal 
working year of 250 days, in doors and out, for the 
average number of industrial workers (5,200,000 
between 1 8 8 1 and 1 905 , as per the United States Cen- 
sus), the time actually lost by strikes during twenty- 
five years was less than two thirds of one per cent 
of the whole — an almost negligible fraction ! 

As Organized Labor for that twenty-five years 
averaged not over one seventh of all industrial labor, 
and yet called nine tenths of all the strikes — it was 
roughly (man for man) fifty times as pugnacious — 
made fifty times the trouble. Nevertheless, organ- 
ized labor won but 65 per cent of its strikes, while 
unorganized labor won 44 per cent. 

That is, the net advantage shown over non-union 
labor in winning strikes (which is the object of or- 
ganization of Labor) is but one win in three ; though 
it calls them fifty times as often! The extreme 
minuteness of this net advantage, — one win in three 
during two thirds of one per cent only of normal 
working time, which is practically no advantage at 
all, — confirms from another angle the revelation of 
Chapter IX of this book, and shows why union labor 
has not gained faster than non-union labor during 
the last forty years. The great machinery simply 
cannot make good ! 

Let me urge upon your apprehension, gentlemen 
of the press, that strike machinery has gained no 
substantial advantage for union labor since 1880; 

[179] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

but on the contrary has steadily cost its votaries loss, 
both of wages and of their purchasing powei. 

Let me now ask you as good citizens to say, of 
what use is this great fighting machine to the com- 
munity? Is any town or region better off by reason 
of one or a hundred strikes or lockouts? Is govern- 
ment better off by reason of being forced because of 
machine-made riot or machine-cast ballot to meddle 
with such purely private affairs as the wages which 
an hundred or ten thousand men are, or are not, 
content to take, for doing lawful work offered by 
employers? Is the nation better off by reason of a 
machine for driving a class-wedge into our social 
solidarity? Is constitutional right better established 
because 4 million men stand together to deny the 
liberties of 40 million? 

From every point the huge record of trades- 
unionism is one of purely negative result. As labor 
cannot wait and capital can, it stands to reason, when 
it comes to test of endurance, that Labor has no 
chance against Capital. For instance, employers 
won, as shown above, 68 per cent of the lockouts, 
though Organized Labor won 65 per cent of the 
strikes. In other words, when it is sufficiently im- 
portant for the employer to fight, he keeps it up, and 
wins. These lockouts averaged 85 days long, against 
25 days for strikes ! As was the case in my Chicago 
strike experience, in due time the unions always 
throw the strikers overboard, and let them shift for 
themselves. Then the poor fellows go back to work, 
wiser and worse off. 

Once more : what do the laborers themselves gain 
by "Organization"? As Horace says, " Parturiunt 
monies; nascetur ridiculus mus." 



[180] 



CHAPTER XXIII 

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. PROS AND CONS 

In order to guard against my own inherent skepti- 
cism as to the actual value of trades-unionism and 
collective bargaining, I have asked the judgment of 
friends upon it in two industries, in which it at first 
seemed to me great results had been attained by the 
unions for their members; with perhaps stability in 
work and production and benefit also to the trade 
involved and the community. I refer to the Gar- 
ment Workers and the United Mine Workers in- 
dustries. 

Like every one else, I was and am in keen sym- 
pathy with the victims of what is called " sweating" 
in the clothing trades; and with the men who pass 
their days underground in the grime and darkness of 
coal mining, with risk of life from deadly gases and 
damp. There seemed no way out of their hard con- 
ditions, and in the garment industry out of their 
old-time starvation wages; because both industries 
were so largely carried on by small operators, under 
fierce competition in the sale of their respective 
products. This was especially true in the " sweat- 
shops " ; run in the great seaboard cities, for the most 
part by Russian and Polish Jews, immigrants them- 
selves, who had by incessant labor and thrift saved 
enough to hire a few of their compatriots to make, 
for instance, shirt waists at home on piecework; and 
whose imported habits and standards of life led 
them to take a pittance as their wage. Their em- 

[181] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

ployers in turn sold to the great department stores 
or the smaller shops, kept again by men who had 
fought their way up by hard work and thrift; and 
who under the fierce competition had no mercv on 
themselves or their work people. Few of them 
made money, or grew great enough to put in good 
plants and mechanical equipment; for the shops that 
bought their stuff resold it again to the poorer classes 
at fantastically low prices. As is always the case, the 
mass of the people got the benefit of the situation; 
and it seemed hopeless, without entire reconstruc- 
tion of the whole machinery of distribution, to do 
better by the workers. Now, however, the thing 
has been done; and wages and conditions in the gar- 
ment trades are certainly most favorable to the 
workers. I had been of the impression that the 
change was entirely due to Organization of Labor; 
and am still unwilling to say that it is not largely 
the work of the garment workers' unions; yet here 
again I find our old acquaintances, the law of supply 
and demand, and profiteering, at the bottom of the 
improvement. Apparently the special success and 
great growth of firms like Hart, Schaffner & Marx 
of Chicago, of Kuppenheimer and the Rochester 
manufacturers, the Troy shirt and collar makers, 
and of other great advertisers and merchants, as 
well as manufacturers, has enabled them to build 
great, efficient, sanitary plants to which the workers 
come; to stop "sweated" home work, and largely 
increase production; to pay high and higher wages, 
enormously increased during the war shortage. In 
these big shops, with their hundreds or thousands 
of employees, the union organizers found their game 
all laid out for them; and a long succession of strikes 
led to the collective bargaining that now so largely 
characterizes the garment industries. Yet even here 

[182] 



COLLECTIVE BARGAINING 

there is not complete agreement of the doctors. I 
recently wrote a very large Western Company, ask- 
ing the following question : 

" Has the organization of labor in the clothing 
manufacturing industry had the effect of stabilizing 
and standardizing wages and conditions of labor, to 
the benefit (i) of the industry; (2) of the working 
people; (3) of the individual manufacturer?" 

They answer that for nine years they have had 
in force " a form of collective bargaining" with the 
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, and 
have had no serious strikes; on account of " the very 
elaborate labor department and arbitration machin- 
ery maintained. We are practically the only large 
manufacturers in the country that have been able 
to conduct business without labor difficulties over a 
course of years. On the whole, our company re- 
gards its experience with collective bargaining as a 
success." They further said that sweating has dis- 
appeared from the industry, and wages have almost 
quadrupled in eight years. Great shortage of labor, 
especially during the last year, has pushed wages up 
to an average of $40 per week. From $50 to $90 
per week are very common. The small concerns 
have had to follow the big ones. 

On the other hand, they say another large Roches- 
ter firm, Michaels, Stern & Co., are prosecuting an 
injunction suit against the Amalgamated; which last, 
under advice of Professor Felix Frankfurter of 
Harvard, is using this case to clarify the rights of 
Organized Labor in New York State. 

All of which is exceeding interesting; and comes 
back to the same old governing law of local condi- 
tions — with no hard and fast horizontal rules, that 
can apply universally — the very antithesis of col- 
lectivism. You will note how reservedly my Western 

[183] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

correspondents say " on the whole " they regard 
their experience with collective bargaining as a suc- 
cess. What it would have been without their large 
financial means, to back it up with other substantial 
attractions to their laboring people, is another story 
that they do not tell. 

I wrote, too, to a large coal and iron firm in 
Cleveland; friends familiar with the soft coal indus- 
try. They answered as follows: 

II We do not believe the soft coal industry has 
been benefited by collective bargaining with the 
United Mine Workers. 

"There is a difference of opinion among opera- 
tors on this question, some favoring collective bar- 
gaining, others opposed. 

"As a rule unorganized labor in the soft coal 
industry has consistently gained in wages and con- 
ditions faster than has organized. This to my mind 
is due to desire of operators to head off the unioniz- 
ing of their properties." 

Once more the doctors disagree; meantime the 
non-union man works the law of supply and demand 
as his best friend. I omitted to say above, when 
quoting the Western clothing firm, that they also 
remarked that wages in the New York garment 
trades, which "are feebly organized" are $5 to $10 
higher than in Chicago, strongly organized. It is 
local supply, not organization, of labor that fixes 
wages. 

I also omitted to say that my coal-mine friend 
added the instructive remark: "We are outside the 
district in which the United Mine Workers operate. 
Our manager, however, has had experience in the 
1 closed shop ' districts. He says there is a differ- 
ence of opinion among the operators as to collective 
bargaining with the U. M. W. He is opposed to 

[184] 



COLLECTIVE BARGAINING 

it, but I do not believe we would oppose collective 
bargaining with our own men. Personally, I favor 
the latter." 

The manager gave his reasons for opposing a 
deal with the U. M. W. ; among them especially the 
" check-off " system, by which the employers agree 
with the union to take out of the men's pay their 
union dues, fines, etc., and turn them over to the 
union treasurer — thus " cutting a stick to welt their 
own backs with. Which," adds the manager, " would 
be a joke, were not the consequences so serious." 

This convenient way of making their members 
pay up, even against their will, is always proposed 
as part of "recognition of the union" in collective 
bargains; though not always accepted by the em- 
ployer. It is one of the most powerful reasons for 
the insistence of the labor leaders on collective bar- 
gaining; and shows excellent business acumen on 
their part. 

Their main reason, however, is evidently central- 
ization of labor control. No better illustration of 
this purpose can be cited than the existing situation 
(May 29) at the United Shoe Machinery Com- 
pany's works at Beverly, Mass. A strike has been 
in progress there for some weeks, called to force 
the company to abandon the practice of making 
written contracts of employment with its men indi- 
vidually. Of course, there can be no question of the 
entire constitutional and legal right of both com- 
pany and men to sign such contracts; and of course 
such contracts seriously interfere with union plans 
for calling strikes from time to time; because the 
courts will interpose by injunction, and indeed have 
done so already in this case, to forbid the men from 
breaking them. Today's papers report a meeting 
of representatives of thirty-five labor unions, most 

[185] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

of which must be in no way connected with the 
U. S. M. works, who voted to request the various 
unions of the district to consider the question of a 
general strike " as the only solution for this un- 
American attack on organized labor — the applica- 
tion of the individual contract." Resolutions were 
adopted recommending that the Executive Board of 
the A. F. L. consult counsel, to the end that the Con- 
stitution of the United States be amended to prevent 
the application of the individual contract in indus- 
tries where the employees work for hourly wages; 
that counsel be engaged to draft an amendment to 
the State constitution, providing for the election of 
all judges by the people; and that the Montreal Con- 
vention of the A. F. L. (coming soon) shall place 
the United Shoe Machinery Company on the "un- 
fair list." (This last means to boycott it.) 

Of course there can be no possible objection to 
any movement by union leaders to change the con- 
stitution in a constitutional way, whether of the state 
or the nation. Such use of the labor vote is lawful 
and aboveboard. We can all of us consider it, and 
meet it at the polls as we see fit. But, gentlemen of 
the press, here you have the destruction of individual 
right by trades-unionism squarely put up to you as 
a proposed alteration of our fundamental organic 
law. What do you think of it? 

The United Shoe Machinery Company was vio- 
lating no moral or statute law in offering steady 
work and good wages in useful industry, upon con- 
dition that the terms and duration of employment 
should be denned by written agreement executed by 
both parties; the men who signed such agreements 
did so voluntarily, for the sake of the jobs; no man 
did or could compel them to sign; there was no 
trouble with work, wages, or conditions between 

[186] 



COLLECTIVE BARGAINING 

company and men; nothing was wrong, except that 
a court might (and did when it came to the point 
of a threatened strike) interfere to say to the men 
that union orders could not set aside the " obligation 
of contracts," an obligation held so sacred by the 
Constitution of the United States that even Sover- 
eign States were forbidden to pass laws impairing 
it. But never mind! union control of an "auto- 
cratic" corporation and its laborers is at stake. All 
the industries of an entire district must be para- 
lyzed; the constitutions of state and nation must be 
amended; judges must hold office in terror of 
"Labor" at the next election; the whole political 
and economic system of the United States must be 
so changed as to secure our domination by Mr. 
Samuel Gompers, or by whomsoever may be presi- 
dent of our " Super-State," the American Federa- 
tion of Labor! 

The reporter does not say that this labor meeting 
at Beverly was "authorized" from the Washington 
headquarters of the Federation. If not, I may be 
doing Mr. Gompers a partial injustice as to this 
particular instance. We shall shortly see. But it 
conforms to the general political program laid down 
by the Federation, as you are aware. At least there 
is this sign of progress in the education of Labor, 
that not so long ago its attitude was "to hell with 
the Constitution!" Today it merely says "amend 
the Constitution." 

But to come back, in concluding this chapter on 
"Collective Bargaining," to its subject matter; take 
it all in all, I will back the non-union laborer, — who 
is free to work as hard as he likes, and make all the 
wages he can, — both to make more money and to 
live a freer and happier life, than the man who goes 
by the union gospel of sloth, and gives least return 

[187] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

for what he gets. His employer can play that same 
game, holding most of the trumps, too; even in 
trades so peculiarly adapted to unionization and col- 
lective bargaining as the garment and coal-mining 
industries — Mr. Gompers to the contrary notwith- 
standing. 



[188] 



CHAPTER XXIV 

COERCION. VIOLENCE. PICKETING 

In Mr. Gompers' debate with Governor Allen, al- 
ready referred to, he expressly asserts the law-abid- 
ing character of Organized Labor, and its officially 
taken attitude against violence. He has always said 
that such was the attitude of Labor, and I think that 
its public votes and resolutions, such as there may 
have been, are probably in accordance with his words. 
Certainly it would be foolish to vote or resolve other- 
wise. Nevertheless, there is seldom a prolonged or 
moderately large strike without violence, greater or 
less. The whole proceeding is frankly one of coer- 
cion; and is usually carried out by the picket line, 
which in itself contains the powder and match for 
an explosion, and needs but the careless hand to put 
one to the other. When it comes, Labor usually 
glosses it over as what golfers would call " a rub 
of the green," a regrettable but unintentional and 
legitimate incident of industrial " war." 

There are two fallacies under this gloss; first, 
that in civil life war is not the lawful remedy for 
difference of opinion between buyer and seller of 
labor or anything else, the courts are there if the 
case is justiciable — the unions have no right to 
declare war; second, the explosion, though perhaps 
unintentional, can hardly be called unpremeditated. 
The unions are morally responsible for violence that 
occurs along the picket line; and they usually show 
that to be the fact by employing counsel to defend 

[189] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

sluggers. They did, for instance, in my little type- 
writer strike already cited; and in the notorious 
McNamara dynamiting case at Los Angeles, and in 
numerous other cases. Allan Pinkerton's dictum, 
" Organized Labor is organized violence," stands 
proven as against Mr. Gompers' denial of lawlessness 
by three things: first, that slugging, sabotage, etc., 
so often occur, and that the victims are so seldom 
union men; second, that the unions pay lawyers to 
defend the guilty, if caught; third, and most con- 
vincing, that the unions have never made the smallest 
effort to prevent or end violence. 

If they really wish to be law-abiding, why do the 
unions not join with the state in forbidding and 
penalizing lawlessness among their own members; or 
in arresting or punishing those guilty? Did you ever 
hear, gentlemen of the press, of the unions giving up 
a slugger, or machine wrecker; or of their offering 
a reward for detection of those who cast that slur on 
union fame; or of their fining or expelling any man 
who chased a "scab" away from a job, or casually 
broke his head with a brick? Would it be possible 
for violence to occur on the picket line, always in 
broad daylight, and in presence of fellow pickets, 
without their knowledge and connivance; or indeed 
without the knowledge and backing of their unions? 
Could not the latter suspend, fine, or expel the culprit 
every time, if they really wished to uphold the law, 
and respect the rights of the non-union man or the 
employer? 

If the unions rely solely, as they pretend, on the 
unquestioned right of the laborer to quit work, col- 
lectively, is there any need of the picket line at all? 
Why can the strikers not go fishing, or otherwise 
enjoy a holiday, far away from the works and the 
inevitable risks of the picket line? Why do not the 

[190] 



COERCION, VIOLENCE, PICKETING 

union leaders command them to stay away entirely, 
and abolish the picket line altogether? 

You know the answer, gentlemen, as well as I do. 
They do not rely entirely, or even largely, on peace- 
fully refusing to work; though in the long run that 
is their best bower. What they do figure upon is 
perfectly unlawful prevention of the free flow of 
labor, and perhaps of material; so as to deprive the 
employer of the benefit of free competition in the 
labor market, to which he has moral and lawful 

rI S ht - 

At the risk of boring you with iteration, gentle- 
men, let me once more urge you, as patriotic men, to 
condemn this whole philosophy of union coercion as 
morally, economically, and politically criminal, and 
practically vicious ; not only debauching the laborer 
as craftsman and citizen, but robbing him as wage- 
worker, for the benefit of a few labor leaders. 



1 191 ] 



CHAPTER 

UNION PROPAGANDA. 

PENETRATION" 

As I have said elsewhere, the Report of the A. F. L. 
is a remarkable document, worth careful study. 
It discloses the perfectly legitimate program of 
" peaceful penetration," as the Germans used to call 
it, by trades-unionism, directed not only at our po- 
litical but also at our educational institutions. 

The current campaign for election of friends of 
labor to Congress and other offices is, of course, 
familiar. The departments at Washington, notably 
those of Commerce and Labor, are filled with union 
friends ; the Secretary of Labor, Mr. W. B. Wilson, 
being a union man in good standing. Mr. Louis 
Post, whose activities in the matter of relieving aliens 
from deportations are under fire, is next thing to 
a laborite ; using the term without offense. Such so- 
called economists as Mr. Jett Lauck give govern- 
mental official weight to what might be called labor 
economics, fed out to the public in wage disputes. 
For instance, Mr. Lauck a short time ago testified 
in the Boston Elevated Railway wage adjustment, 
for the purpose of showing that the law of supply 
and demand in the fixing of wages is inapplicable to 
meet the present situation. He declared that the 
workman is entitled to a living wage regardless of 
the condition of the labor market; that five different 
commissions of the national government had com- 
piled estimates of the minimum income required to 

[192] 



UNION PROPAGANDA 

support an average family of live, the highest being 
$2533.97 per annum; and that the Fall River budget 
of the National Industrial Conference board had 
estimated $1715.55 per annum as the lowest for the 
same family, which last Mr. Lauck condemned as 
entirely inadequate. Mr. Lauck attacked "profit- 
eers" and the packers; and said the latter' s em- 
ployees might be given an increase of 1000 per 
cent in wages without equalling the increased profits 
taken by the packers during and since the war, etc., 
etc. Now, the figures given in my Chapter on So- 
cial Justice, which are from the latest government 
reports, according to the World Almanac, showed 
an average actual gross production for 19 19 of 
$1440 per worker. 

It thus appears that Mr. Lauck testifies that the 
minimum on which an average family can live is 
nearly $1100 per annum more than the actual gross 
output on which the 50 million workers of the 
United States, not only actually did live very abund- 
antly in 19 1 9, but moreover laid up unheard-of 
savings deposits out of! Such is a fair sample of 
the kind of Labor propaganda fed to the American 
people by the skilled hand of the labor demagogue ! 
It well illustrates the "peaceful penetration" of our 
bureaucracy, our tax-eating fraternity, by the " friends 
of Labor." Mr. Lauck wound up by saying " Yes" 
to counsel, who inferred from his figures that Bos- 
tonians, who are receiving less than 75 cents per 
hour, are not getting a subsistence wage ! Of course 
the object of the testimony was to hold up the street- 
car riders or the city for whatever fares might be 
necessary to support the fantastic wage-scales he 
swore to. 

Is it any wonder, gentlemen, that wherever the 
pick of investigation is struck into the cost of ad- 

[193] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

ministration at Washington, there is turned up a 
rank and rotten mass of corruption and waste? Sec- 
retary Wilson of the Department of Labor said the 
other day regarding deportation: " Class struggle, 
mass action, conquest of political power, dictator- 
ship of the proletariat, socialism, communism, one 
big union, shop committees, shop stewards, etc., in 
the Communist Labor party platform, however rep- 
rehensible to the minds of many of our people, do 
not bring the organization within the purview of the 
Act, as long as no force or violence are used." Of 
course ! These things are mere methods of looting 
the thrifty; let us say the taxpayers. Probably the 
Honorable Secretary is right regarding the technical 
purview of the Act; but I wonder if he could forget 
Labor long enough to bring such grotesque " eco- 
nomics " as Mr. Lauck's within the purview, techni- 
cal or moral, of official integrity? The use of force 
or violence would be almost better than such sworn 
testimony; such impossible governmental represen- 
tations; sowing such useless, unsatisfiable discontent. 
In our school system also, peaceful penetration 
by Organized Labor goes on. Reports of commit- 
tees show that organization of a teachers' union affili- 
ated with the A. F. L. is under way; and night 
schools, some of them, as in Boston, are carried on 
in Public School Buildings. I have not been able to 
study the courses of teaching offered at these schools, 
which seem to be intended largely for the foreigners, 
far enough to judge of their purpose. Of course, 
no man would grudge any progress in education to 
the working classes; yet if such economics as Lauck's 
are taught, such hostility to constitutional rights and 
the judiciary as Gompers voices, such class politics 
as the labor campaign program of 1920 outlines, 
it behooves us, gentlemen of the press, to look to our 

[194] 



UNION PROPAGANDA 

schools! Certainly, any educational activities of 
Labor will not run counter to its own carefully chosen 
course. 

There has been considerable Labor penetration 
of our public services, state and municipal; as was 
much discussed at the time of the Boston and Atlanta 
police strikes. All through our public employment 
the same eternal vigilance, which is the price of 
liberty, must be exercised in the interest of the tax- 
payer, and of political morality. An universal Tam- 
many Hall is not an ideal of democracy; even if it 
masquerades under the honest overalls of labor. 

Our universities also seem to me full of the 
propaganda of Organized Labor, mingled with col- 
lectivism ; here at Harvard, for instance. I am my- 
self a Harvard man; and believe in the intellectual 
independence of the professor, up to the point of 
constitutional right or wrong — when he should back 
his country, or get out of it. A very sincere and 
honest group of professors at Harvard and Colum- 
bia seem to love the wide collectivism of Organized 
Labor; without the least conception of the impos- 
sibilities involved, and as far as my reading shows, 
without at all studying or realizing the minus results 
achieved. I doubt whether any one of them ever 
created or financed an industry, or employed even 
so few as an hundred men; or ever tried to coax the 
necessary but unwilling dollars from the bank ac- 
count of the hungry capitalist, so eager to grab every- 
thing in sight, and exploit the workingman; or ever 
stood between the devil and the deep sea of trades- 
unionism and sales competition; or ever gambled 
on the crops or politics or change of fashion, or other 
blind factors in supply and demand. Fortunately 
for themselves, their universities rest upon the sure 
foundation of the endowments given by men who 

[i95] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

have successfully done all these things; and their 
salaries, though none too large, are secure. They 
do not have to worn 7 about markets or how to meet 
the next pay roll ; or whether perhaps they can secure 
workmen for wages at all. They can let such details 
be taken care of by the poor devils who are "landed" 
with them; and can themselves loftily think in col- 
lectivities. But their moral and intellectual support 
of the impracticable and the unjust is pretty hard on 
the men to whom their great educational institutions, 
all of the??i, appeal for cash. It is to me a strange 
and curious thing that they should so little appreciate 
the enormous usefulness to the community of even 
the most selfish bourgeoisie. My own rather irrev- 
erent conviction is that the Lord created the bour- 
geoisie, because in His infinite wisdom he found 
that the best way to ensure the creation and storing 
of capital for the world; just as he created the bees 
to make and store honey. Of course, Mr. Gompers 
does not see it that way. 



[196] 



CHAPTER XXVI 

PROFITEERING 

On the principle of lucus a non lucendo I go out of 
my way to say a few words about " Profiteering " ; 
because it has nothing whatever to do with the Labor 
question, except in so far as Labor profiteers ; which 
to be sure is something not to be despised. I refer 
rather to that part of the alleged crime of profiteer- 
ing chargeable to Capital, and go into it because it 
forms an essential item of the stock in trade of every 
labor (and other) demagogue that orates nowadays. 
It is trotted out particularly to hide Labor's share in 
causing high cost of living, as a smoke screen is 
thrown out in modern sea fighting by warships to 
conceal their own place and movement. 

" Profiteering," while unpleasant to those who pay 
high prices, is a perfectly normal manifestation, of 
the free play of the law of supply and demand; and 
is its own quickest cure. For it must never be for- 
gotten that nothing does away with high price except 
abundant supply; and that nothing stimulates pro- 
duction of abundant supply like high price and large 
profit. The very first essential to production is 
capital ; and capital turns first to that field where the 
largest return offers, and away from the 'lower return. 

For instance, the present crusade and legislation 
against rent profiteering seems to me the stupidest, 
most short-sighted piece of selfishness imaginable, 
though I am myself a renter. Rents have nowhere 
near doubled, though everything else has. The land- 

[i97] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

lord's income from rents buys only half what it used 
to buy, and naturally he wishes to do as others have 
done : increase the price of what he has to sell enough 
to put him on the same plane of living relative to 
others that he formerly occupied. The law says 
No; you shall take twenty-five per cent more than of 
old, and no more — at least around Boston. 

What is the result? There is great shortage of 
housing and storage. No building has been done 
for several years on account of the high cost of labor 
and building materials. That is why tenants who 
must have space bid up on each other and rents go 
up. If the landlord could advance rents enough to 
get a good return on the necessarily high cost of new 
buildings he would find the capital and build them. 
But will he try to do so — knowing that he cannot 
get a decent return now, for the current years when 
shortage is sure to fill every room he can provide; 
and with the certainty that a few years hence, when 
the cost of building falls and permits the competition 
of newer and cheaper buildings, he cannot get a 
decent return on his high-cost structures then? 

Once more, the only sufficient answer is the slang, 
" Not on your life." There will be no relief from 
the present congestion of housing conditions so long 
as the law penalizes the man who would build ! 

Or, consider a prosecution commenced in Boston, 
May 25, against one of the pet targets of Attorney 
General Palmer (candidate for the Democratic 
nomination for the Presidency), to wit, the packer 
firm of Armour and Company; haled before the 
United States Commissioner, for importing a cargo 
of lamb carcasses from New Zealand, and selling 
them at a profit. Lambs (domestic) were selling in 
Boston at 30 to 34 cents a pound; so Armour took 
the risk of buying a shipload in New Zealand, and 

[198] 



PROFITEERING 

bringing it refrigerated to New York and Boston, 
and offering it there for sale at 24 to 25 cents. It 
was of finer quality than the domestic lamb and sold 
readily at the cut in price. The evidence showed 
that the Chicago packer firm of Cudahy was obliged 
to meet the cut and sell domestic lamb at 25 cents. 
The Attorney General now prosecutes Armour and 
Company, because the lamb cost them in New 
Zealand about 13J/2 cents; and Armour therefore 
"profiteered." 

Under the Lever law that firm may indeed be 
found guilty; but it is a safe bet that it will never 
try again to help the consumers in New York and 
Boston to get good lamb, one fourth cheaper than 
they can buy it at home, by importation from abroad. 
That kind of crime is profitable to the public and to 
the packer, — too profitable to both to be permitted 
to last; it is time for the politician to divert some of 
the profit in his own direction. Hence the Attorney 
General and the prosecution. 

Consider also the prosecution just begun of the 
American Woolen Company and its President, Wil- 
liam M. Wood. The company has undoubtedly 
made extraordinary profits, as have all our producers 
of standard food, clothing material, or other neces- 
saries of life; because the world supply was short 
and there were foreign as well as domestic buyers 
for everything the American factories could produce, 
at prices beyond all forecast. The stimulus to pro- 
duction was huge, and the response instantaneous; 
the result shows today already in signs of over- 
production and falling off of demand all along the 
line of American industry. Meantime, for a year or 
two the manufacturers have been extraordinarily 
prosperous. Now comes the Attorney General, and 
says that under the Lever law it was a crime to recog- 

[199] 



LABOR IN POLIT: 

nize world prices; that if a manufacturer asks of an 
n as much as a foreigner will pay him for his 
goods, he is a profiteer. If he has to buy his wools 
abroad he must pay foreign prices, true enough; but 
he must not sell his cloth at them, taking rather what 
the American is willing to pay. 

The case is not parallel to the building indus 
in that the construction of new mills was stimulated 
early enough to take place before the Lever law, 
for the most part; and the mills were built, and are 
in existence, at work turning out goods, though not 
quite so fast as before. The prosecution of Mr. 
Wood will not stop them; as the rent prosecutions 
will stop building operations. But it is none the less 
stupid demagog; ms to me. It is, of course, 

athetic to Organized Labor: whose action here 
turns the spot-light on its political methods. Mr. 
Wood is popular with his employees at Lawrence, be- 
cause among other things he has started a coopera- 
store for their benefit; so they got up last week 
a public demons of confidence in him, when 

his prosecution was announced, in which 
thousand of them took part. The Amalgamated 
Textile Workers' Lawrence Local Union promptly 
came back at him with a telegram to Attorney Gen- 
eral Palmer as follows: ''Millionaire Wood con- 
temptuous of law. Preparing public opinion to 
whitewash profiteers. Ten thousand organized 
operatives demand that government shall carry 
through the prosecution of Wood and all other 
profiteers, and that he be compelled to give the 
working people the government standard of 5^: 
wages per week as a minimum, and also be com- 
pelled to reduce the hours of labor so as to prevent 
unemployment." 

There is a very perfect bit of labor econon 
[200] 



PROFITEERING 

that burns the merry candle of capital at both ends 
and in the middle ! Doubtless it will score a bull's- 
eye with Mr. Palmer; who has simply got to reduce 
the high cost of living before election day, whether as 
a candidate, or merely as a Democrat. But it is safe 
to predict that prosecuting Mr. Wood will not bring 
more woolen goods into the world markets; nor re- 
duce the cost of clothing, nor increase the wages of 
the Textile Workers' Union, by one penny; nor tend 
to stabilize the business situation that hangs over 
us all. 

To return to our sheep — perhaps I should say our 
lambs — let me beg you, gentlemen of the press, not 
to let Labor camouflage its own war on the Amer- 
ican public by charging the American capitalist with 
high levels of prices and cost of living, that are sub- 
stantially the same, where lack of transportation 
does not disturb them, throughout the civilized 
world. President Wilson says we cannot isolate 
ourselves politically, which is true ; still more true is 
it that we cannot isolate ourselves commercially. 



[201] 



CHAPTER XXVII 

THE EIGHT-HOUR AND SHORTER WORK DAY 

There is no more instructive reading on the phi- 
losophy of Labor than the oft-quoted Report of the 
A. F.L. for 1919, pages 72, 145, 241, 449, 45 2 ~454 
inclusive, on the subject of the Shorter Work Day. 

Perhaps Mr. Gompers' greatest achievement, next 
to the size of the A. F. L. and its control, is the 
progress made toward establishing the eight-hour 
day; which is becoming common, though not uni- 
versal by any means. The report discloses formal 
indorsement by the Federation of any movement 
inaugurated by any affiliated body toward a still 
shorter day, for instance six hours; or for a shorter 
week, with a half holiday on Saturdays, making a 
forty-four hour week at eight hours a day; of course, 
without reduction of pay, i.e., "wages so adjusted 
that the earnings of labor will buy the same amount 
of the necessities of life." The committee recom- 
mended and the Convention adopted the following: 
11 That the Executive Committee lend its assistance 
to any organization seeking to establish a shorter 
work day that will provide for the employment of 
all its members," — the organization to be the judge; 
and when it has determined the " shorter hours, no 
matter what they may be, the A. F. L. shall lend its 
fullest assistance." During the debate the prob- 
ability of slack trade and unemployment was fore- 
casted by several speakers; and Mr. Green, of the 

[202] 



THE SHORTER DAY 

United Mine Workers, said it was " the very serious 
purpose of the United Mine Workers to press for a 
further shortening of the hours of labor which we 
now have, in order to furnish employment to the 
thousands of mine workers in the industry." Mr. 
Green had previously called attention to the war 
results of the industry; after losing 100,000 workers 
demanded by the war, yet it increased output be- 
yond any figure hitherto thought of. Mr. Tracy 
favored a campaign of education for the shorter 
work day, among members; referring to "overtime 
hogs " who had no concern in the organization other 
than the amount of money in their pay envelopes. 

The instructive feature of the debate and the 
resolutions is the prevalence in the minds of the labor 
leaders of the old false, laborer's notion, that there 
is only so much work to go around; and if there are 
more men than needed to do it, it must still be split 
up among them all, each man doing less, in order to 
keep them all employed; of course at full wages. 
The fallacy of thinking that when there are already 
too many men for the work, it will help things to 
put on more ; that either the world or the men them- 
selves can possibly benefit by loading the product 
with useless labor, — or rather with the cost of 
wasted time, — has always stuck in the heads of the 
labor leaders, especially Mr. Gompers — who has 
several times laid down the law on this point. This 
debate took place on Resolution No. 160, which 
read in part as follows: 

"Whereas tremendous changes have taken place in the 
industries of this country and the world, due to the introduc- 
tion of new machinery and methods of efficiency ; and produc- 
tion of commodities has increased to a great degree ; therefore 

" Resolved, that the A. F. L. . . . conduct a campaign 
... to establish the Universal Six-Hour Day," etc. 

[203] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

Now, the whole history of trade and industry 
demonstrates nothing more broadly, than the fact 
that, whenever production overtakes and exceeds de- 
mand in any industry, capital seeks new employment 
in diversification and creation of new products and 
markets therefor; absorbing in the process the idle 
labor released as surplus from the older industries 
which can no longer expand. Of course such diversi- 
fication is an affair quite beyond the vision or concern 
of labor; which is content to reap the benefits in due 
season. The most discouraging thing to the student 
of Organized Labor, who like myself has believed 
in its educational possibilities, is the denseness — 
real or feigned — of leaders like Mr. Gompers, in 
grasping such elementary facts of history and eco- 
nomics, although vital to labor. I cannot see that it 
would in the least cripple him, whether as honest 
steersman of his followers, or as demagogue, to 
avoid smashing his Federation against the stone wall 
of economic law. 

However that may be, there is no reason why 
you should not see straight, gentlemen of the press. 

It is evident that our Daylight Saving Laws, which 
are further attempts of legislation to interfere with 
nature, and standardize local conditions, are not en- 
tirely successful. The farmers are in arms against 
the cities by reason of them; and the worst of it is, 
that there is likely to be an exceedingly dangerous 
reaction, and a most unexpected one, upon the vol- 
ume of our crops. The papers are filled with dire 
forebodings, probably exaggerated, yet not hastily 
to be dismissed from mind. 

In this connection the eight-hour day is playing a 
wretched part; and it is evident that when the Presi- 
dent announced the "sanction of society" for the 
eight-hour day, he had in mind only our Cambridge 

[204] 



THE SHORTER DAY 

sociologists and their like, shutting out the farmers 
at least from that polite collectivity. Nor are the 
farmers alone in thinking that an eight-hour day is 
too short; I incline to judge, from the A. F. L. Re- 
port as well as general knowledge, that the great 
bulk of daily work in two or three hundred thousand 
large and small shops, in retail stores, and domestic 
service, is still done on a nine-hour or longer schedule. 
Of course, the " eight hours for work, eight for play 
and eight for sleep," sounds symmetrical and entic- 
ing; and nobody wants anybody to work a minute 
longer than necessary. The serious question is, "Is 
eight hours enough to do the world's work, and keep 
us all alive and prosperous as we have been on longer 
hours? " I think you will agree with me, gentlemen, 
that there is no way to find out, but to try ; in each 
industry for itself and by itself, not tied by Federa- 
tions of Labor and Houses of Politics into hard 
knots with other totally unrelated industries. You 
can't work a jackass and a motor car very well in 
double harness, for instance. 

The blast furnace must work twenty-four hours a 
day, the morning paper must be printed at night, the 
housemaid must get up before breakfast and stay up 
after supper, the street car must run often or not 
according to volume of traffic from hour to hour. 
The city firemen can work, or rather wait for fire 
alarms, twelve hours a day, easily; the stoker in 
front of a hot furnace can stand it perhaps for four 
hours twice a day; and so on through an infinite 
variety of demand on mind and muscle. Human life 
must go on; and its requirements in human service 
must be met and paid for on such conditions and at 
such rate as will fetch the needed labor. That is the 
only criterion of work and wages; subject of course 
to reasonable veto by the state of conditions prejudi- 

[205] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

cial to the health and future of the race. There is 
but one way out; and that is not to attempt the 
standardization of unstandardizable employments, 
but to leave employer and employee absolutely free, 
in the old and natural way, that has worked out the 
immense progress of the race, to hire and be hired, 
if and when they can agree together. 

Meantime, per capita productive power tends al- 
ways to increase in future as in the past, and hours 
of labor tend always to decrease in future as in the 
past, — that is to say, in any given industry, as out- 
put overruns demand by virtue of greater efficiency 
in production. But the eight-hour day is new, while 
the world is thousands of years old; and constantly 
has the race progressed in numbers and in welfare, 
with a far longer working day. A shorter day is 
evidently not necessary for human welfare; and it 
remains to be proved whether even an eight-hour 
day will sustain the world in present ease and com- 
fort, especially after a few centuries, when coal and 
oil give out. However, they will last our time. 
After us the Deluge ! 

Meantime I submit that greater diversification of 
industry, more necessaries and luxuries of life, 
higher standards of living, are worth more to all 
of us than an hour or two more to loaf every day. 
Certainly, nine men out of ten are better off and 
happier at work than when idle, up to the point of 
healthful fatigue. I never happened to know a man 
who had done anything extraordinary, in so little 
time as eight hours a day, average work. Mr. 
Gompers himself says he works sixteen hours, and 
I believe him ! The Federation should expel him as 
a "scab"; or rather as an "overtime hog." 



[206] 



CHAPTER XXVIII 

SUCCESSFUL COOPERATION 

Most fortunately and auspiciously for American 
industry and politics, the honesty and sound sense 
of American Labor has already begun to show itself 
in practical cooperation with Capital, foreshadow- 
ing the radical change in temper and purpose of 
trades-unionism, which I have hoped to expedite by 
the teachings of this book. Two most interesting, 
significant, and successful examples of cooperation 
have recently been made public: those of the gar- 
ment workers and their employer in Cleveland; 
and of the street railwaymen and the Philadelphia 
Rapid Transit Company. The latter is the older, 
formally inaugurated in 191 1. It is the remarkable 
achievement of President Thomas E. Mitten, the 
most successful street railway manager in all the 
world, apparently. I quote from the Boston Herald 
of August 22, 1920, as follows: 

"There was a man in Chicago, at the head of the City 
Railways Company, who had achieved a high reputation there 
and in other large cities. So Thomas E. Mitten was called 
to Philadelphia. He took hold as chairman of the company's 
executive committee under E. T. Stotesbury as president; in 
1 91 4 Mr. Mitten was made president. Mr. Stotesbury is the 
Philadelphia representative of the house of Morgan & Co.; 
the present regime has been known from the start as the 
Stotesbury-Mitten management. 

" Mr. Mitten began by meeting his men on a get-together 
basis so friendly, so frank, so democratic, as immediately to 

[207] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

win them over — at once forming a relationship so intimate 
that the attitude of mutual trust was soon so strongly ce- 
mented as to grow steadily firmer to this day. One of the 
first things done, with the help of Mr. Stotesbury, was to take 
the company out of politics. At that time Philadelphia poli- 
tics had lost little of its old-time savor as a particularly rotten 
mess. The P. R. T. was thus relieved of one of its worst 
loads and its men were set free to vote as they pleased. 

" The new management took hold in 1910; the cooperative 
plan has been steadily developing from then to now, even 
augmented by desirable new features. The original coopera- 
tive plan was presented to the unions in 191 1, resulting in a 
signed agreement to abide by the action taken. A recogni- 
tion of collective bargaining was a basic principle. At that 
time trainmen received a maximum of 23 cents an hour ; the 
rate is now 61 cents; in the near future, as agreed, it will be 
723/2 cents. With higher wages has come a steadily improved 
morale. In return, the company has received what an official 
well terms a ' super-service ' so loyal that, while the company 
in 1 9 10 w r as carrying 445 millions of passengers at an average 
fare of 4.13 cents, in 19 19 it carried 850 million at an aver- 
age fare of less than four cents. And yet in 19 19 these were 
carried by fewer trainmen than in 19 10. Almost doubling 
the number of passengers and reducing the average fare! 
This measures the development of the riding-habit. In 19 10 
the city's population averaged 288 rides per capita; in 19 19, 
over 400. 

" Up to 1 91 3 wages were paid out of a fund of 22 per cent. 
Then, with changed conditions this proved inadequate. For 
two years, more was paid than the fund produced. The new 
scale is based on the average of the maximum rates in the four 
cities: Chicago, Milwaukee, Cleveland, and Buffalo. The 
latest rate, 72^ cents, is as of May 16, June 1, 1920, and is 
retroactive ; pending a discussion with the city authorities and 
the public service commission, it was agreed that the increase 
should not take effect until a decision had been reached. Of 
this unanimous vote by delegated representatives to await the 
increase of revenue looked for President Mitten said that a 
cooperative effort of men and management to work to a 
mutual purpose had here been given a new meaning in sustain- 

[208] 



SUCCESSFUL COOPERATION 

ing the policy to give the best possible service at the lowest 
rates of fare; to pay the highest wages equal to the average 
in other cities of like conditions, and to protect properly the 
equities of stockholders. From the men at large came this 
sentiment : 

11 ' We will stand back of President Mitten to a man in 
anything he does in connection with the management of the 
P. R. T., knowing full well from past experience that our 
cause is in good hands; and we approve this action of our 
representatives with three hearty cheers and best wishes for 
his success in all his undertakings.' 

11 The organization established jointly by management and 
men to carry out this policy is The Cooperative Welfare As- 
sociation, with a membership of nearly ioo per cent. Mem- 
bership costs the men $i a month ; the company contributes a 
like amount by agreement and has lately doubled its payment, 
making the total receipts about $300,000 a year. One feature 
is a savings fund of over $800,000 a year. This shows that 
about 10,000 employees are earning more than a living wage. 

" A principle of the management is to see that ambition is 
duly rewarded by assuring promotion to those who fit them- 
selves for it. A policy is to maintain the ' open shop.' The 
aim of increased production to meet higher wage-cost has been 
accomplished in a most remarkable way : an increased produc- 
tion of 120 per cent as compared with a higher wage-rate of 
151 per cent since 19 10 is robbing the high cost of living of 
its terror. 

" Representatives of the wage-earners are elected by secret 
ballot to form an assembly containing also direct representa- 
tives of the company for discussing and determining every 
matter of interest to the employee in their relations with their 
employer. This form of cooperation has had a test of about 
nine years. The controlling thought of the management is 
that with and through the men themselves the condition of 
employment and well-being should be improved. It is held 
that the degree of participation in the management to which 
the men themselves may aspire is yet unknown; it must de- 
pend upon the success which follows a more intelligent han- 
dling of present duties and the efficient handling of their 
domestic affairs on a business basis." 

[209] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

The Boston Herald also quotes President Mitten 
of the Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company as 
follows : 

" The ke) r stone of all success as between men and manage- 
ment is confidence. . . . The confidence of the men in the 
management, and likewise the confidence of the management 
in the men, is what makes Philadelphia stand out in ac- 
complishment." 

The Cleveland example is not so far advanced 
in showing financial results — it is not yet old 
enough. But two men, Messrs. Morris A. Black, 
a Harvard graduate, president of the Employ- 
ers' Association, and Meyer Perlstein, a Russian 
Jew, general manager of the International Ladies' 
Garment Workers' Union in Cleveland, after fight- 
ing for several years, got together during the war 
— in 1917 or 191 8, I suppose — for cooperation 
and maximum production, with of course maximum 
wages and best conditions. The two sides jointly 
employ efficiency engineers to determine maximum 
scales of output, consistent with health and reason- 
able recreation, standard conditions, and wages 
proportionate to results. Provision is made for ad- 
justment of controversies within the shop if pos- 
sible; if not, then within the joint board of the 
associated shops; if not even there, then by outside 
arbitration. But the point is, not to strike or in- 
terrupt output; "the parties talk of work first and 
disputes second," says Mr. Samuel Crowther, who 
writes of this experiment in The World's Work. 
He quotes Mr. Perlstein as follows: 

"When I first came to Cleveland and for a couple of 
years afterward my inclination was to be radical, to advocate 
the absolute ownership of industry by the workers, and to 
strike just to weaken the employers. Ownership by the work- 

[210] 



SUCCESSFUL COOPERATION 

crs is a part of the preamble to the constitution of the Inter- 
national Ladies' Garment Workers' Union. I had a leaning 
toward industrial warfare for itself — that is, to break down 
capitalistic control. 

" Now I have changed my mind. I recognize that there 
are three parties to industry, and I am of the opinion that if 
a labor union can cooperate with intelligent employers in 
such a way as to increase production and the two can get 
together to stop seasonal work and at the same time give a 
proper service to the public, then the wages of the workers 
will be higher and the public will get better goods at lower 
prices than if the workers alone own the establishment. I 
think that when we get properly together we can all get what 
we want, not out of each other's pockets but out of the big- 
gest profiteer of all — that is, waste. 

" In the garment trade, and I think it is the same in every 
other trade, there is enough waste of time, motion, and mate- 
rial through bad manufacturing methods and through an over- 
emphasis on seasonal work to allow, if cut out, the employers 
a reasonable profit, the workers a reasonable wage, and the 
public goods at a low price. 

" I used to think, with many other union men, that there 
was only so much work to be done and that the way to give 
employment was to spread out this work so that every one 
might have a job. I no longer think this. If an employer 
tries to get high production, paying low wages, and then shut- 
ting down his plant and holding goods for a high price, then 
the proper reply of the worker is to limit production ; but if 
the employer comprehends good business methods, and gives 
both the public and the worker the benefit of the increased 
production brought about by higher wages and lower prices, 
— which is always possible, — then, and only then is it the 
duty of the worker to cooperate. That is the basis we have 
reached here in Cleveland, and I think we reached it before 
any one else did." 

You can value the significance of these new depart- 
ures in relations between Labor and Capital for your- 
selves, gentlemen of the press, without further com- 
ment from me. Between them, Mr. Mitten and Mr. 

[211] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

Perlstein pretty completely cover the field of reme- 
dies for labor unrest. 

Before closing this chapter it is worth while to 
quote Mr. Perlstein once more, as a sidelight upon 
old-style labor methods, and by way of contrast to 
the foregoing. 

" When I got here in 1914 there was no local organization 
and not more than twenty-five or thirty people in the city 
with union cards, and they were afraid to show them. Just 
as soon as the bosses learned who I was, any workmen seen 
talking to me were fired. They threw me out of every shop 
I went into. I called a strike wherever I could but the men 
seldom came out. These strikes were not about anything in 
particular, but organization strikes — that is, if you can get 
a certain number of people in a shop to walk out and then 
have them picket the shop, a number of others will be afraid 
to go to work and you can get them for union members. The 
strike is a part of organization work. It is the most expen- 
sive but also the most effective way to get results." 



[212] 



CHAPTER XXIX 

SUMMARY OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS 

I now come to the hardest part of my task; so to 
state my conclusions as to carry your convictions, 
gentlemen, along with my own. The latter are so 
decided that I fear the reaction of their emphasis 
against my own arguments. Let me take off my hat 
for the thousandth time to Governor Coolidge, 
whose masterly address to the visiting members of 
the National Editorial Association at Boston last 
night (the evening of Decoration Day) will I hope 
be read by every newspaper man in America. Its 
few columns are worth a dozen books like this, as 
true inspiration to you men of the press to do your 
duty by the country always, and especially in the 
matters of which I write. Would that I had a little 
of his positive genius for hitting the nail on the head 
in two words. Bear with me, please, if too prolix. 

In treating of Organized Labor, more particu- 
larly of Mr. Gompers, I would not join what a 
certain lurid, hyphen-haunted scribe might call the 
Tarbell-and-feather-Rockefeller-sehool of history. I 
feel myself an amateur in this behalf compared to 
that first of all professionals, Samuel the prophet 
(to some extent the profiteer) of Labor; and I have 
not the cocksure confidence in the amateur as against 
the professional, that was voiced on a now historic 
occasion, not so long ago, by the first of living 
amateurs, in perhaps his profoundest bit of self- 
revelation. Let me therefore deprecate my drastic 

[213] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

convictions, even if I cannot shake them. ' Here 
they are, briefly summarized: 

Though I may save my money, build a factory, 
and offer work and wages to attract labor to my 
project, I do not admit any intention, and in fact do 
not "struggle," to "oppress" or ".exploit" any 
laboring man; but on the contrary my offer, whether 
he accepts or refuses it, is a distinctly friendly and 
beneficial act toward him, although I am doing it 
for my own sake and not for his. 

Mr. Gompers' appeal to my laborers to organize 
for a class struggle with me is therefore based on a 
German lie; the motives of class hatred, selfishness, 
and sloth, which he stimulates, are thoroughly evil; 
the purposes he formulates of monopoly, extortion, 
and denial of the rights of others, are entirely bad; 
the methods he uses, of combination to coerce the 
employer, or the public, or both, by means other 
than peacefully quitting work (the legitimacy of 
which is generally conceded to the employees of any 
given employer) are morally wrong and legally 
criminal; his constant pressure for more pay on the 
one hand in return for less work on the other; his 
forcible interference with free action of the natural 
law of trade, are commercially dishonest, economi- 
cally impracticable, and financially disastrous. They 
have resulted, and must more and more result, in 
high cost of living and injury to industry and the 
community; and in inevitably low earnings for labor 
itself. For it is impossible for labor to get more out 
of the world by putting less into it. 

Furthermore, Mr. Gompers' political policy, ask- 
ing class advantage as the price of nonpartisan polit- 
ical harlotry, offering the vote of labor to the highest 
bidder, without distinction of person or principle, 
tends to complete, with the above, the demoraliza- 

[214] 



SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS 

tion of the union laborer, whether as honest work- 
man or good citizen. 

The huge and centralized organization which Mr. 
Gompers controls, its enormous income of over 50 
million dollars per annum (far beyond that of any 
political party) — contributed by millions of poor 
men, either voluntarily , in the belief that paying 
tribute thus fattens the pay envelope; or perforce, 
by reason of terrorism or in the grip of the ruthless 
" check-off " system — this organization and income, 
especially the latter, give to the labor autocracy 
power so great, so irresponsible, and so dangerous, 
as well to deserve the jealous scrutiny and control of 
a free people. Even Tammany Hall does not hold 
as it were a first lien on the wages of the thousands 
of employees of the city of New York; nor does the 
Democratic Administration take out of the pay en- 
velopes of letter carriers all over the country, before 
handing them to their hard-worked owners, an as- 
sessment to support the " Organization " ! Ponder 
this thing well, gentlemen of the press. 

Turning to industrial considerations, the huge and 
complex system of labor organization and federation 
by crafts instead of by employments — tying to- 
gether as it does the labor troubles of all concerns 
employing members of the same craft — is a neces- 
sary hindrance to industrial peace, and makes for the 
spread of strikes. To me, as a lover of economy in 
operation, it seems over-organized and top heavy; 
and it certainly has been colossally costly to labor 
with no corresponding return. It is designed, as its 
organic laws reveal, to carry out the sympathetic 
strike, the general strike, and the strike against pub- 
lic welfare ; all of which are unquestionably against 
public policy and should be abated. 

In other words: the centralized control of, say, 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

four million workers in great national strike machin- 
ery is of no value to the individual worker, but rather 
a positive detriment, in adjusting his wage and work 
with his actual employer. Its sole value and purpose 
seems to be the holding up of whole industries or 
vital public service; that is, of the people — for more 
pay than is due for zvork done, under the free and 
fair award of the laws of trade. Else it must be, 
and indeed it openly is, intended as consolidated 
voting machinery to control elections by class vote. 

Either purpose is a menace to free government; 
and should be put an end to by law enacted by free 
people. No one benefits by either, except a vast 
labor bureaucracy, useless to labor itself and perni- 
cious to the state. Decentralization, free operation 
of natural economic law, divorce of business from 
politics, least government, least political bureau- 
cracy; also, least taxation — these seem to me the 
best tonic for our industries. 

But they are nothing new; nothing but a return 
to normal conditions under the Constitution of the 
United States. 

Of course it would be altogether desirable, as I 
shall try to show in a later chapter, that these radical 
changes in the organization and purpose of Labor 
should come about voluntarily with its hearty co- 
operation and good will. That would be the ideal 
course of action for all of us free Americans. The 
legislative remedies later suggested are proposed 
only because so far there is no sign of change of 
heart on the part of the labor leaders. Unless the 
Montreal Convention of the A. F. L.. which as I 
write is but a few days oft, shall abandon Mr. 
Gompers and his fight for centralized control of 
labor and minimization of production (as is most 
unlikely), the American people must inevitably, in 

[216] 



SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS 

1920 or later, meet at the polls the fundamental 
question of the freedom of government and of busi- 
ness from the domination of Organized Labor. 

Meantime, as the Steel Corporation has shown on 
its great scale, and my own experience cited above con- 
firms for ordinary concerns, every employer great or 
small can at any time free himself and his working 
people from the Labor Octopus by frankly declaring 
his job non-union, once aiid for all. All that is nec- 
essary is to so order his affairs as to be able to shut 
down tight for ten or twelve weeks when unavoid- 
able, once in five or six years perhaps, to give his 
laborers, who by and by forget, a little leisure to 
learn and ponder again the utter uselessness of great 
centralized Labor-organization. 

Employers have been very slow to do this simple 
thing, however, and the current evolution is and will 
be, in my judgment, along the lines 0/ useful trades- 
unionism (that is of strictly localized collective 
bargaining, wherever it actually works to mutual 
advantage, as in the Cleveland and Philadelphia 
cases cited above), with growing realization of the 
democratic and educational value of sound union 
principles. 

Of course, such evolution will hardly suit Mr. 
Gompers, who will shout " Unfair, unfair to labor." 
But the public will come to understand that this 
catchword, so appealing to our clergy, means in the 
vocabulary of Organized Labor merely an employer 
who refuses to become party to its great game of 
humbugging four million toilers out of fifty million 
dollars a year, for no earthly use. 



[217] 



CHAPTER XXX 

REMEDIES. POPULAR ACTION. "s. O. S." 

Until Mr. Gompers announced his political creed 
not long ago no American demagogue had dared 
openly to propose a class vote for class advantage. 
Many had been as selfish as he, but all, I think, had 
been hypocritical; pretending to seek power for the 
good of the people, or of the world, as a whole. It 
remained for him alone to abandon all show of 
patriotism, and announce that Organized Labor 
knows no welfare but its own; that it has no gen- 
eral political principles or platform, no issues on 
which to fight the coming campaign; and but one 
question to ask every candidate, whether Republi- 
can, Democrat, Socialist, or Anarchist, no matter 
which, namely, — "What will you do for Labor, 
if elected?" 

It is hardly necessary to cite instances of the politi- 
cal demoralization already worked by this prostitu- 
tion of the labor vote. The whole mischievous twist 
of every natural fluctuation of wage-scales, in re- 
sponse to changing trade conditions, away from a 
purely economic to a political issue of local or na- 
tional extent; the Adamson Law, with its reaction on 
railway rates and taxation; its sequels of the Plumb 
Plan and the " outlaw" railway strike; the Clayton 
Act, with its attempt to legalize labor and farmer 
holdups; the Act returning the railways to their 
owners loaded with operating deficit, yet with notice 
to those unlucky investors that railway labor may any 

[2.8] 



POPULAR ACTION. "S. O. S." 

time, with full sympathy of Congress, paralyze rail- 
way operation by strikes, even against the public 
welfare— -all this unholy alliance of the labor lead- 
ers with the politicians in power, to set up govern- 
ment of the people by and for Organized Labor, is 
as dangerous to labor itself and the different dema- 
gogues concerned as it is to the state and to com- 
merce. No man can tell when or where a crash may 
come, or who will go down in it. 

We know from the preceding chapters just what 
Labor wants of politics. It wants free slugging on 
the picket line, free sabotage, — no police or mili- 
tary protection for non-union men or material on the 
way to the job; it wants no injunctions protecting 
the employer or non-union man against combination 
to prevent his quietly pursuing his lawful business; 
it would take from our supreme courts that power 
to invalidate unconstitutional laws, which has been 
their chief glory and most valued function; it asks 
government to take over and mishandle great prop- 
erties in order to raise wages, shorten hours, forbid 
efficiency, and plunder the public and the taxpayers 
for Labor's benefit; it wants the law to force em- 
ployers to submit and pay tribute to a huge, rich, and 
rapacious labor monopoly, which in its turn shall 
obey and pay tribute to a small centralized labor 
autocracy; it carefully meantime contrives utmost 
irresponsibility. 

From the beginning to the end of this political 
and industrial program there appears but one domi- 
nant motive, — pure selfishness; but three constant 
objects, — the most pay, the least work, the great- 
est irresponsibility, for Organized Labor. There is 
but one consistent appeal — to the miserable human 
instincts of envy, hatred, discontent, and sloth; but 
one uniform method — monopoly and coercion; but 

[219] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

one regular line of action, if it can be called action 
— to balk, rather than to pull with all the rest of 
us. From beginning to end there has never been 
evident the least intention to help the community by 
doing more when asking more; but always on the 
contrary the plan is to rob the crowd by extorting 
more for doing less, under threat if resisted to work 
ruin by doing nothing at all. Representative gov- 
ernment is now asked to sanction this program 
throughout. 

Let me urge upon your apprehension, gentlemen 
of the press, the menace to free constitutional gov- 
ernment of this so-called non-partisan political as- 
pect of the "labor movement." Industrial troubles 
will wear themselves out; indeed they are rapidly 
doing so, as the country's growing impatience with 
the balky mule of Organized Labor gets to the point 
of starting a fire under it. Comparative peace will 
settle down and losses will be forgotten by and by. 
But unless you gentlemen put the country on guard 
at the polls against a sort of national Tammany 
Hall of four million members, say two million pos- 
sible votes, and fifty million dollars certain income, 
frankly and definitely " out for the stuff " for them- 
selves and families, at the cost of the rest of us and 
our families, — unless you stand for enforcement of 
law; for representative government against class con- 
trol ; for the Supreme Court against the Federation of 
Labor; in short, for the Constitution as handed down 
to us by our fathers, — we who want to govern 
ourselves, and have something to save, may have to 
gather it together and start a new pilgrimage from 
Plymouth Rock (this three hundredth anniversary 
year of 1920 would be an appropriate date), say, 
to the Sahara or the North Pole, where it would 
hardly pay Mr. Gompers to follow. 

[220] 



POPULAR ACTION. "S. O. S." 

However, I have not the least idea that such a 
pilgrimage is really before us. During the Spanish 
War an Englishman of high degree once asked me 
in a London drawing-room what we were going to 
do with the Philippines. I answered that I could 
not imagine; that under our theory of government 
by consent of the governed there was no place for 
a subject race in our political system; while on the 
other hand we would never put a presidential elec- 
tion at the risk of perhaps the Philippine vote. He 
answered dryly: "You Americans are a practical 
people. Why not quit talking of the Declaration of 
Independence and the Rights of Man; and govern 
those savages?" 

That was an English aristocrat's point of view, 
surely enough; but there was a grain of suggestion 
in it. We Americans are a practical people, and 
make up our minds with amazing suddenness to 
govern the lawless, when it becomes necessary. The 
coming campaign may illustrate the habit; and if it 
does, will be quite in line with recent demonstrations 
of popular practical wisdom in the other two great 
democracies, — England and France. But a short 
time ago the mass of the English people, though with 
them trades-unionism is far stronger than with us, 
rose against it in the matter of railway, coal, and 
docker strikes; supporting the government in main- 
taining public service so powerfully that the strikes 
collapsed. The French people have similarly solidly 
supported the government against the French Fed- 
eration of Labor; and today the cables say that the 
peasantry are presenting great petitions to the Cham- 
ber of Deputies, asking legislation against strikes to 
hold up public service. Those peasants want work 
and earnings! 

Over here, yesterday, the Anthracite Mine Work- 
[221] 



LABOR IN POLITICO 

ers in session at Wilkesbarre, declaring that "class 
legislation has made it almost humanly impossible 
to wage a successful strike," accepted President Wil- 
son's plan to remain at work subject to an arbitra- 
tion agreement retroactive to April i ; and they were 
wise to bow to public opinion. For this year of war 
aftermath, of reconstruction of unbelievable loss of 
life and wealth, is the psychological moment when 
public opinion must as a matter of life and death 
begin to assert itself along lines of common hon- 
esty and sound economics. It is far easier to drop 
in and do so at the polls meantime, than to start for 
the Sahara or the Arctic next Plymouth Rock Day. 

Here is the situation. Our constitutional and 
statute law, until the recent passage of the Clayton 
Act with its class favors to farmer and laborer, em- 
bodied all the protection necessary for the peaceful 
prosecution of every man's lawful business; if en- 
forced. For forty years the threat of the labor vote, 
held over the heads of politicians in power, has more 
or less prevented enforcement; and now it is to be 
used to change the Constitution and statute law so 
as to do away with all protection altogether. For 
the presidential election it is supposed to total a pos- 
sible two million out of eighteen million votes to be 
cast by all parties (women's votes additional) ; which 
would be quite enough to turn the election if voted 
solid — as it never has been. It is advertised as 
non-partisan, for sale to the highest bidder, both in 
national and local elections. 

Bear in mind, however, that to counterbalance the 
threat of the labor vote, and restore the nerve of 
party politicians, it is only necessary to mobilize a 
similar free-lance vote of opposite intention, and the 
same possible size; committed to the preservation of 
constitutional liberties and rights. The visibility of 

[222] 



POPULAR ACTION. "S. O. S." 

such a possible counterbalancing vote would promptly 
free the average Congressman from labor terrorism ; 
and when free from pressure the average American 
legislator tries to do about right. 

Of course, to recruit two million votes is a man- 
sized task; but at this juncture it does not seem to 
me impossible. I would suggest the following out- 
line of a Plan of Campaign as a starter, to set popu- 
lar thought in motion along lines of popular action : 

Plan 

That employers, large and small, in each im- 
portant city, start a non-partisan movement in de- 
fense of constitutional individual right to do lawful 
business, and against all combination to prevent the 
same — and that they finance it, as performance of 
their plain duty to themselves and the community, 
particularly to their own employees, — using per- 
haps, as the most open, rapid, and economical way 
of enlisting popular support, advertisements in the 
daily papers, somewhat as follows (form of adver- 
tisement) : 

" S. O. S." 

The undersigned, and such other employers as may see fit 
to join them, hereby send out this S. O. S. call to all who 
believe in, and are willing to stand for, the subjoined Dec- 
laration of Principles; urging them to sign and send in the 
subjoined application for membership in the 

" Sick of Strikes " or " Save Our Savings " Union 

of the city of , State of , and thereafter to 

support the said principles, and carry them into effect, as 
occasion may arise, by their votes at city, state, and national 
elections, whenever consistent with such paramount political 
obligations as may from time to time appear. 

[223] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

Acceptance of this call, and membership in the S. O. S. 
Union of , will involve no money obligation for dues 

or debts of the Union; which has been incorporated as an 
association not for profit, and will be financed by the under- 
signed, and any others who may wish to contribute toward 
its expenses; but it is understood that no member shall vote 
at elections of officers of the Union, or for members of its 
committees, unless he shall contribute to its support. Each 
contributor shall have one vote, regardless of the amount of 
his contribution, and one only. 

A first meeting of contributors for the election of Officers 
and Committees will be held on , at o'clock 

at Number Street, in the city of 

The Union will be non-partisan; and will not nominate, 
or as a Union support or oppose, candidates for office. Its 
activities will be limited to keeping a card index of members ; 
and communicating to them, preferably by advertisements 
such as this (as serving to inform the public generally, also) 
such specific information upon issues and candidates, as will 
enable members to guide their own votes according to the 
principles professed by the Union. 

Additions or amendments to those principles may be pro- 
posed to the Officers or Committees by any ten (10) mem- 
bers (for which purpose the roster of membership shall be 
open to any member) ; and shall be received and passed along 
by mail by the Secretary, at the expense of the proposers, to 
the contributing membership. If accepted by a majority of 
the latter, they shall then be submitted in like manner to the 
whole membership for adoption by majority vote; in which 
each member, contributor or not, shall have one vote. 

This advertisement, if cut out, signed and returned by 
mail to the Secretary of the Union, will constitute the signer 
a member in good standing; subject to resignation at any time. 

Declaration of Principles 

The undersigned have learned, by long experience, to 
believe in the following general principles: 

I. Highly centralized strike machines of vast membership 
and means, carefully guarded irresponsibility, and ruthless 

[224] 



POPULAR ACTION. "S. O. S." 

selfishness of purpose, have amply proved themselves, by 
frequent strikes against whole industries and the public, to 
be a menace to modern life. Furthermore, by class threat 
of political activity, they now menace free government. 
Therefore the Labor Trust, like the other Trusts, should be 
controlled by law. 

2. Decentralization, in labor and industry as in politics, is 
of the essence of greatest liberty and efficiency. 

3. Absolutely free play of the law of supply and demand 
in the labor market as in other markets is the best friend 
of the laboring man; and permits the nearest approach to 
Social Justice, in actual practice. 

4. Combination either of employers or laborers to coerce 
each other, by other means than lawfully and peacefully 
suspending business relations, is contrary to public policy and 
private right; and should be prevented by law. 

5. Strikes against public service, or supply of necessities 
of life, or to hold up whole industries or groups of employers ; 
likewise sympathetic or general strikes, for the purpose of 
coercion of private individuals or the state, are criminal, 
against public policy, and should be forbidden by law. 

6. The assertion of the foregoing principles, and the 
liberation of business and the community from the shackles 
imposed on both by centralized class organization, constitute 
a public and private duty to themselves, their employees and 
the state, such as to justify patriotic merchants and producers 
in publicly financing this organization therefor, as part of 
their costs of service, and passing its cost along in prices to 
the public; in anticipation of benefits sure to accrue to all 
concerned by reason of greater efficiency, higher wages to 
labor, lower cost to the consumer, and greater profit to the 
producer himself. 

7. Subscription to this Declaration of Principles is to be 
taken merely as an expression of conviction, and not as 
obligating the signer to do or refrain from doing any par- 
ticular thing in any particular case, but rather as voicing his 
general intention to cooperate in carrying said principles into 
effect in specific instances, as from time to time his judgment 
and ability may determine. 

In accordance with the foregoing Declaration, it is under- 

[225] 



LABOR IX POLITICS 

stood that membership carries with it no binding obligation 
whatever on the individual member; except for such con- 
tribution toward the expenses of the Union as he may vol- 
unteer. 

(Signatures of signers of " S. O. 5." call to follow here.) 
The undersigned accepts membership in the S. O. S. Union 

of 

S ignatur e 

Date Address 

If one may judge from the talk he hears on the 
street and among his acquaintances, S. O. S. unions 
initiated as above, by the active employers and good 
citizens in each city and its subsidiary region, would 
soon become powerful centers of concentration of 
effort along the lines chosen; especially if the lead- 
ing spirits in them showed breadth and sincere 
patriotic purpose. Their advertisements would soon 
tell the story. 

They would also serve another extremely valu- 
able purpose, namely, they would take the social 
curse off the hateful epithet "Scab" — so powerful 
in the moral terrorism it exercises among working 
people. The non-union man would find himself free 
to join an " S. O. S." union, where " Scabs M were re- 
spected rather than despised. His wife could hold up 
her head and say, "We belong to the S. O. S. Union." 

Another socially just 'mode of popular action 
has several times been mooted, and was hinted at 
in one of Governor Coolidge's pithy utterances; 
namely, the enactment and popular support of laws 
forbidding the sale of food to men on strike for the 
purpose of cutting off public service, fuel, or food 
supply of any kind. "If any would not work, 
neither should he eat," said the Apostle Paul; whose 
economics appear to have been as sound as his 
Christianity. 

[226] 



CHAPTER XXXI 

LEGISLATIVE REMEDIES 

Suppose we beat Labor at the polls, what remedies 
should be sought for at the hands of representa- 
tives and executives elected; and on what principles 
should we base them? The answer to both questions 
is easy. First, we must ask for restoration of con- 
stitutional individual rights — that is to say, for 
complete liberty of employer and laborer, and unhin- 
dered operation of the law of supply and demand; 
and, second, we must assert the right of the com- 
munity to protect its own life and welfare against 
deprivation of food, fuel, or essential public service 
of any kind, by conspiracy among workingmen or 
Dthers. The principles underlying both are those 
embodied in the Preamble to the Constitution, to 
" establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, . . . 
promote the general welfare, and secure the bless- 
ings of Liberty." 

Considering first the liberty of the employer and 
the non-union laborer, and the unhindered operation 
of commercial laws, the statute and common law as 
they already stand are quite sufficient, if enforced, 
to ensure both desiderata; except for the recent 
adoption by Congress as part of the Clayton Act 
of a clause providing that labor combination shall 
not be held to constitute criminal conspiracy at com- 
mon law in restraint of trade. That Act, which 
Mr. Gompers proudly says contains " the most far- 
reaching declaration ever made by any government 

[227] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

in the history of the world," should be repealed in 
so far as it excepts the laborer and the farmer from 
crimes, which the common law establishes as such 
against all the rest of us. It has never yet been 
passed upon by the Supreme Court of the United 
States, and will, I fancy, be declared unconstitutional, 
as class legislation, when it has its day in court; but 
meantime it should, as occasion arises, be made an 
issue at the polls, and its repeal should be set on 
foot. 

In Wall Street, first preferred, second preferred, 
and common stock may be all right; but we do not 
want first preferred, second preferred, and common 
criminals in our jails or out of them. The criminal 
law should make no class distinctions in democratic 
America. 

Together with the repeal of the no-conspiracy 
clause of the Clayton Act sjiould be enacted a law 
forbidding strikes against the public welfare; also 
forbidding coercion of the individual employer by 
other means than peaceful refusal of his own em- 
ployees to continue at work. 

No man is obliged or can be compelled to work 
for any particular employer or at any particular task; 
that would be industrial slavery. But there is no 
reason why the state should not provide by law that 
any man who chooses to take employment in supply- 
ing any public or quasi public service, necessary to 
the daily life of the community , shall enlist in that 
employment for a stated term; during which it shall 
be unlawful for him to quit work, alone or with 
others, except by consent of his employer previously 
obtained. Penalties should be provided for breach 
of duty and against conspiracy and instigation to 
commit such breach. 

Finally, in order to "insure domestic tranquillity," 
[228] 



LEGISLATIVE REMEDIES 

and "promote the general welfare," the general prin- 
ciple of Decentralization of Power should be applied 
to Organized Labor. To that end an Act to define 
and limit Freedom of Employment, that is, the right 
to hire, the right to organize, the right to strike, 
and the law of collective bargains, should be passed. 
Such an Act would contain very little that is new, 
and is needed rather to clarify popular understand- 
ing of existing law than to create it. Let us con- 
sider these rights seriatim. 

Every one of us now supposedly enjoys freedom 
of employment as part of his individual liberty. We 
are always free to offer, withhold, accept, or refuse 
work and wages in any lawful industry, under any 
lawful conditions. Whether the work is heavy or 
light, the wages large or small, the hours, etc., hard 
or easy, concerns only the man who offers and the 
men who accept or refuse. Neither can compel the 
other to offer, withhold, change, accept, or refuse. 
The transaction is purely voluntary on both sides, 
becomes binding on either party only for the agreed 
term. If employment is by the day or hour, both 
parties are bound only for the day or hour; and not 
even that long if either party fails to live up to 
agreement. 

In other words, neither party has any "right" 
against the other in advance of an offer made and 
accepted. The laborer's undoubted freedom to ac- 
cept or refuse an offer, if made, does not put the 
employer under any obligation whatever to make an 
offer. Single laborers, or a thousand laborers col- 
lectively, are certainly free to empower " a represen- 
tative of their own choosing" to accept or refuse an 
offer of employment, if made; but neither the one 
nor the thousand, nor their chosen representative, 
can compel the making of an offer. 

[229] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

The word "bargain" means voluntary agreement, 
whether individual or collective. No right can ac- 
crue to or in a "bargain" until one has first been 
made. Neither party has any right even to an in- 
terview for the purpose of bargaining; though usu- 
ally granted as a matter of courtesy, when there is 
no reason to the contrary. 

Nor can the one, nor the thousand, nor their col- 
lective representative change an offer made and ac- 
cepted without consent of the maker. They can quit 
work, of course, and end employment at the end of 
its term; and signify their wish to receive a new offer, 
individually or collectively; but they cannot compel 
one as a matter of " right.''' In fine, there is no such 
thing in law or in morals, in the use of plain English 
language, as a right to collective or any other kind 
of bargaining, binding on Judge Gary or anybody 
else. Nor is there anything " autocratic" in the re- 
fusal of any employer to entertain collective pro- 
posals for employment, if in his judgment they 
will not result in stable and mutually satisfactory 
relations. 

Merely as a matter of clarifying public opinion, 
the law should so declare, that absolute liberty to 
offer, withhold, terminate, acept, refuse, or quit 
w T ork, lawful conditions, and wages, belongs to every 
man; together with liberty to employer and employee 
to maintain "union," "non-union," "open shop," or 
no relations; either individual, or collective, or both, 
as mutually agreed, without compulsion exercised or 
attempted on either side. This declaration would 
clearly establish the Freedom of Employment that 
actually now exists, and ought to exist, under the 
Constitution. 

For the evidently beneficial purpose of Decen- 
tralization — of divorcing, for reasons of public 

[230] 



LEGISLATIVE REMEDIES 

good as well as constitutional private right, the labor 
disputes of innocent and guilty — for disentangling 
utterly the mischievous snarl of factory with factory, 
railroad with railroad, trade with trade, city with city 
— for brushing away the great spider's web which 
Organized Labor has spread over all industry, at 
whose center Mr. Gompers awaits the tremor that 
tells of some luckless insect of trade whose wings 
have carelessly touched his snare — for this reason- 
able purpose the law should now ordain : 

That Organization of Labor, for the purpose of col- 
lective negotiation, performance, and termination of contracts 
of employment, shall be voluntary, as to the parties to each 
contract; and limited to the employees of one and the same 
employer. 

That no organization, or " union " of the employees of any 
one employer, shall combine with any other similar union 
or unions for the purpose of compelling collective bargain- 
ing, or for collectively quitting work under or ending con- 
tracts of employment; or for the purpose of limiting in any 
way the constitutional liberty of any employer or employee; 
or for the purpose of " striking " an entire industry, public 
service or utility, for any cause whatever; also, that no em- 
ployer shall combine with any other employer or employers 
for the purpose of collectively bargaining for, offering, con- 
trolling, and terminating contracts of employment, or for 
preventing free competition in the labor market, or for limit- 
ing in any way the constitutional liberty of any employer or 
employee, especially by means of " locking out " or " black 
listing" employees, collectively or otherwise: 

Provided, that regional groups of employers in the same 
line of industry may by mutual agreement, collectively bar- 
gain and act with groups of unions, separately organized as 
above among the employees of each of said employers, as to 
all matters of employment: but no such collective bargain- 
ing or action shall be used to coerce or to limit the consti- 
tutional liberty of any employer or employee not party 
thereto : and also 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

Provided, that collective bargaining shall carry with it col- 
lective or joint responsibility for the performance of bargains, 
not only of each collectivity party to the bargain, but of each 
and every individual or corporation lawfully bound by the 
act of any representative of his own choosing. 

That employees in government or public utility service 
shall enlist therein for stated periods; and shall not quit 
work individually or collectively before the expiration of 
their respective enlistment periods, without consent of their 
employers previously and freely obtained: 

Provided, that means shall be set up for fair adjustment 
from time to time of wages and conditions. 

I make no suggestion whatever to limit legislation 
for preserving health, preventing accident, compen- 
sation of women, vocational training, etc. Every 
right-minded employer is in accord with true humani- 
tarianism. The main intent of my suggestions is 
Decentralization. 

But I am just now made aware of the growing 
need for one more assertion of law. This book must, 
I find, be sold by circularization and mail order, in- 
stead of through the usual book-trade channels, be- 
cause none of several large publishers consulted will 
take it, though all admit its interest and timeliness. 
Two of them frankly say they do not court trouble 
with the printers' unions by putting their imprint on 
such a work. The others may feel the same way, or 
may merely doubt its selling value. But, gentlemen 
of the press, there should be no element of terrorism 
in their considerations. A hundred thousand, or so, 
of union printers cannot dictate what a hundred mil- 
lion free Americans may or may not read. The law 
should forbid strikes against the freedom of the 
press; especially in the interest of the printers them- 
selves, who get their daily bread by virtue of that 
freedom. 

[232] 



CHAPTER XXXII 

ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 

The clumsy and partial hand of government should, 
as far as humanly possible, be kept away from the 
shrinking and sensitive throat of industry; especially 
from its human element, labor, which in a democracy 
so largely constitutes also the body politic. It is 
perfectly clear that in our American form of repre- 
sentative government, under our Constitution, we 
originally contemplated neither a Socialist nor a 
Soviet state, nor wished to determine for each man 
his exact place in the life of the community, his 
definite work, and his fixed share in the common 
product. We had not then, and have not now, the 
remotest idea of making ourselves, every one of us, 
the serfs of bureaucratic administration; whether it 
be of Woodrow Wilson or Samuel Gompers, or any 
other man or set of men. 

On the contrary our fathers proclaimed the widest 
constitutional liberty of the individual and told gov- 
ernment to keep hands off, except in so far as neces- 
sary to protect our liberties against aggression from 
the outside or from each other. 

It follows, then, so long as our theory of govern- 
ment remains unchanged, that no interference of gov- 
ernment with industry should be asked or tolerated, 
except to enforce the law, to keep the peace, and 
to protect our personal and property rights. 

This involves a clarifying of public opinion on the 
tender subject of picketing; or prevention of free 

[233] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

operation of the law of supply and demand in em- 
ployment of labor. 

To present the subject concretely I quote from 
today's paper (Boston Herald, April 20) the fol- 
lowing: "Pistol Ball hits Striking Docker. One 
man was shot, two were arrested charged with as- 
sault, and a third arrested for assault and battery 
yesterday, following an altercation on Long Wharf, 
when a brick alleged to have been thrown by a strik- 
ing longshoreman into a truck-load of strike break- 
ers drew fire from one or more revolvers. All three 
arrested are strikers. The person who fired the 
shots managed to escape detection by intermingling 
with the 75 or more of their fellow men on the 
truck." 

On this particular occasion the pickets seem to 
have got the worst of it. Since the recent Boston 
police strike has changed substantially the entire 
police force the new men seem to be disposed to 
end rioting. The Long Wharf dockers had struck 
and quit work many days before the shooting just 
described. They did not quit the premises, how- 
ever, but hung around the wharf to prevent the 
movement of goods by men hired to take their places 
— so-called "strike breakers." At once appeared 
the usual characteristic of most strikes, viz., that the 
strikers have not the least intention of throwing up 
their jobs and are not really dissatisfied with them. 
If they were, they would simply look out for places 
they like better, and quit as fast as found, one by 
one. (In fact this is constantly done; so much so, 
that voluntary shifting of men from job to job — 
known as "labor-turnover" — has averaged, I am 
credibly informed, in large industries one hundred 
per cent of the total force employed during recent 
years, and has become a very serious burden to em- 

[234] 



ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 

ployers.) What the strikers really intend is not 
only to stop work themselves; but to see to it that 
nobody else works in their places, until their em- 
ployer is compelled to ask them back upon their own 
terms. In short, coercion! 

Of course the employer is lawfully free to offer 
to others the work and wages the strikers have quit ; 
and those others are lawfully free to accept. Ex- 
perience has shown that in the majority of cases 
there are men enough ready to accept the work and 
wages refused by those who quit to carry on the 
various jobs and "break the strike," unless prevented 
— peaceably or otherwise. 

That is where the "picket line " comes in: to pre- 
vent newcomers, who are willing and even glad to 
take the vacant jobs, from doing so by " peaceful 
persuasion," or otherwise. The American constitu- 
tional right of assembly is held by Labor to mean 
that strikers may block the public streets; the con- 
stitutional " right of free speech " means inflamma- 
tory talk against the employer, and the use of the 
odious epithet " scab " against the non-union worker, 
even against his wife and children. What, then, 
should a clarified public opinion require of govern- 
mental administration, as reasonable enforcement of 
law, beside keeping of the peace and protection of 
personal and property rights? 

The answer seems to me plain and clear. Strikers 
have undisputed right to quit their work; but if they 
do, they have no right upon the premises, and the 
employer has undisputed right to eject them. They 
then, in common with all the public, have undisputed 
right of thoroughfare, of peaceful passage, along 
the public streets. They have, however, no right to 
block them, or to interfere in any way with their 
free use for lawful movement of men or materials ; 

[235] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

especially have they no right to commit or incite 
breach of the peace. Mr. Gompers can juggle 
phrases, such as the " right of picketing with peace- 
ful persuasion," etc.; but as a matter of fact, plain 
speaking, and common sense, every one knows that 
the purpose of picketing, whether "peaceful" or 
not, is nothing else than prevention of the free flow 
of labor and material essential to the lawful busi- 
ness of the employer, and to the self-support of the 
non-union laborer, thus violating the constitutional 
rights and liberties of both. When, in addition to 
such unmistakable intent to violate private right, the 
strikers deliberately risk if not invite breach of 
the public peace, — in spite of countless monitory 
experiences, — it becomes to me an unavoidable con- 
clusion that public welfare and private justice alike 
demand that the authorities shall stop "picketing" 
altogether. 

This conclusion is confirmed, and the wrongful in- 
tent of Organized Labor is verified, by its bitter op- 
position to the granting by the courts of writs of 
injunction, whether — as very rarely — they restrain 
the unions from picketing, or, as they usually do, 
merely from violence and intimidation on the picket 
line. If the unions intend no breach of law, or of 
the peace, why should they object to the injunction 
of the court to obey the law and keep the peace? If 
they rely merely on their own peaceful refusal to 
work, why do they not simply stay from the job 
altogether, until the employer begs them to come 
back? 

You, gentlemen of the press, who are accustomed 
to sizing up men and motives, well know that while 
it is morally and legally right for a man to refuse 
work and quit, if dissatisfied; it is also morally and 
legally wrong for him to stand in the way of another 

[236] 



ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 

man, who is willing to take what he refuses ; wrong 
both to that other man and to the employer. 

It is probably true, and long experience has shown 
that picketing is practically essential; and without it 
strikers seldom win. And it is also true that picket- 
ing generally results in violence. The famous detec- 
tive, old Allan Pinkerton, testified in the " Mollie 
McGuire" riot trials forty years ago in Pennsyl- 
vania, that " Organized Labor is organized vio- 
lence," and the New York papers a few years back 
quoted Mr. Gompers as saying, U A strike without 
violence is a joke." Whether he ever said this I 
do not know; but it is certainly true of all big strikes. 
Yet the fact that strikers cannot win without violent 
or wrongful means of coercion does not justify those 
means. On the contrary, a fortiori, as the law de- 
nounces and forbids them, so administration should 
enforce the law. 



[237] 



CHAPTER XXXIII 



Much has been said of late to the effect that the em- 
ployer is to blame for labor troubles ; that the scale 
of modern industry is too great for the human, per- 
sonal touch, between master and man, that creates 
affection, and confidence between them. A soulless 
organization is said to have intervened; a machine, 
in which the workman is a mere unheeded cog, with- 
out recognition as a human being. This accusation 
is true to the extent that the employer, as the abler, 
broader man, with strength to bear his fellow men's 
burdens, may reasonably be asked to look farther 
ahead for his workers, as an essential factor in his 
industry, than they can be expected to look for them- 
selves. And it is a fact that large employers almost 
without exception are today keenly alive to the hu- 
man, personal element in labor relations, and are 
endeavoring as never before to appeal to the mind 
and heart of the individual worker, as well as to his 
pocket. 

I am glad to believe that this new interest in hu- 
man relations is largely a matter of kind heart and 
good conscience with most captains of industry; but 
better and sounder still, that it is at the same time 
one of constructive, good business management. 
Every man who like myself has been a considerable 
employer, and knows workingmen, will agree with 
me, I think, that there can be no sound permanent 
and cordial relations between the two that are not 
based on mutual interest. Pretense of unselfishness 

[238] 



EMPLOYERS' REMEDIES 

is distrusted, patronage is odious; yet it is emphati- 
cally true that if a manager sincerely sees to it that 
his men get the most and best that their jobs can 
fairly yield them in comparison with other jobs, the 
men reciprocate by making those jobs yield more 
and better yet to him and to themselves. 

As I have said before, men usually work for other 
men because they cannot, no matter why, work for 
themselves. Here are then the plainly evident in- 
terests of all wageworkers, — absolute necessities, as 
I see them: 

First, Employment. The man must have a job, 
furnished by some one else. It must be steady, for 
his time is all he has to sell, and every day he idles 
is so much pay lost forever. He should be the last 
man to interrupt his own job, nor should it be sub- 
ject to interruption by quarrels of other men with 
other jobs in which he is not concerned. 

Second, Freedom to Change. If his job fails, 
does not pay, or does not suit, it is vital to him to 
be free to take any other job; not shut in or out by 
union walls. It is best for him, and for the com- 
munity, that labor should be like capital, liquid; free 
to flow where most needed, in ample supply every- 
where, stagnant nowhere. 

Third, Going Wages, Regularly Paid. Everybody 
wants " top wages," but only that employer can pay 
them who gets from his men top production; for 
product is all that pays wages. A man's wages are 
not so much the amount of his pay check, as the food, 
clothing, etc., that check will buy. It is no use for 
any body of men to try to get much more than " going 
wages," because they represent the natural economic 
division of what there is to go around; which last is 
substantially used up, every year. Men cannot and 
do not by striking get more out of their jobs than 

[239] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

they themselves put into them. The surplus is not 
there! Up to the point of healthy fatigue, the 
worker should regularly do his best to increase out- 
put, and decrease unit cost to his employer, because 
that alone can increase his own pay check without 
robbing some one else. 

Fourth, a Prosperous Employer. The man wants 
regular work, week in and out, and sure pay. That 
means always a strong and prosperous employer, 
independent of the labor and financial troubles of 
other concerns. 

Are not these four things that labor wants exactly 
what the employer wants, — regular and steady op- 
eration; free labor supply; top output with resulting 
low cost; high wages, and a prosperous business? Is 
there not here true identity of interest of Capital, 
Labor, and the Community? 

The employer can help toward this identity and is 
now very frequently helping by systematic propa- 
ganda, educating his employees in the law of wages 
and away from the gospel of hatred and antagonism 
taught by Mr. Gompers and his organization. A 
long step in such education is the " shop committee " 
movement, which Labor now so vigorously opposes; 
it consists in the election by the work people in each 
establishment of representative committee men from 
their own number, who are taken into frequent and 
friendly consultation by the shop management, upon 
purely shop questions, touching work, wages, and con- 
ditions of employment; and who are given oppor- 
tunity to judge for themselves of the reasonableness 
of the treatment accorded those they represent. The 
essential value of the scheme is that it tends to create 
intimate relations and confidence between men and 
management in each establishment, and to cut each 
loose from the troubles of neighboring concerns. 

[240] 



EMPLOYERS' REMEDIES 

Both results are of course dead against the plans 
of the Labor Octopus; whose tentacles have so far 
been wrapped around all industry — to let none 
escape. Mr. Gompers will spare no effort, as I have 
already shown from his own utterances, to keep em- 
ployers and their own employees from direct deal- 
ings with each other; but you, gentlemen of the 
press, will not mistake his motive; nor will you, I 
think, say with him, that "not only the welfare of 
the workers but the best economy for the nation de- 
mands . . . that the workers be united into organ- 
izations covering whole industries, as is now the case 
with the one hundred and twenty national and inter- 
national trade-unions." If the experience of the last 
forty years and of the last forty weeks, superlatively 
that of the last forty days, proves anything regard- 
ing the welfare of the workers and the best economy 
of the nation, it is that national and international 
strike machines benefit nobody in this wide world 
except the demagogues who organize and run them. 

Beside favoring the " human touch," the Shop 
Committee, etc., many large employers have started 
profit sharing, or bonus declarations out of profits. 
Others give to foremen and men entrusted with 
heavy work and responsibility, a percentage upon 
results. The Steel Corporation enables its men to 
buy shares in the company, guaranteeing them against 
loss; which in my opinion is the best way to insure 
cordial relations between capital and labor. Merge 
them; then both see both sides ! 

But as most laborers do not save, nor buy shares, 
nor care much for profits or bonuses not payable until 
the end of the year — maybe not then if not earned 
— and yet for the good of all concerned should be 
tied solidly and loyally to their jobs; I suggest that 
small employers, who cannot do as the great corpora- 

[241] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

tions are doing, should make term contracts with 
employees individually, signed and secured by for- 
feit, to put their minds at rest, once and for all; 
contracts to provide as follows : 

Employee not to quit or be discharged (except for breach 
of contract) or be laid off on less than three months' 
notice. 

Employee to join with fellow employees, who sign like 
contracts, in forming their own union (in no way tied 
to any other union), which shall choose from its own 
membership a Representative Committee. 

Employer from time to time to prepare and announce 
reasonable maximum scales and conditions of output 
and wages ; on the principle of hearty cooperation of all 
parties for maximum efficiency, consistent with healthy 
fatigue. Employees falling short of reasonable maxi- 
mum output as per scale adopted, to draw pay reduced 
in proportion to actual output. 

Representative Committee to have fullest facilities for in- 
vestigation of scales proposed by employer; and there- 
upon to accept, or arrange to modify or reject the same 
on behalf of their principals ; the members of the union 
to be bound accordingly. 

Employer and employee on each pay day to contribute each 
say 2^ per cent — in all 5 per cent — of the amount 
due the emplo)'ee that day, and deposit this 5 per cent 
in a responsible bank, to accumulate at interest as a 
forfeit to secure performance of the employment con- 
tract. The accumulation to be divided between em- 
ployer and employee, if he quits or is discharged on 
three months' notice, or by mutual consent; or to be 
forfeited entirely by or to him, if he quits or is dis- 
charged without three months' notice, at any time dur- 
ing the first fifteen years of his employment. After 
fifteen years he may retire and withdraw the whole ac- 
cumulation, or take a pension representing it, on giving 
three months' notice. 

No employee to be forced to join union or sign contract; 
any who so elect may remain without contract as ordi- 
[242] 



EMPLOYERS' REMEDIES 

nary laborers by the day. Any contract laborer may 
quit without notice by losing his forfeit. 
In case of deadlock between employer and Representative 
Committee, because of non-acceptance of proposed 
scales — the men must give three months' notice be- 
fore quitting, or lose their forfeits — and the employer 
must do the same before shutting down, or employing 
new men, or lose his forfeit. 

Some years ago a Western actuary figured for me 
that after fifteen years the laborer could draw down 
an accumulation that would buy him a little home — 
and after twenty-five years could retire on half pay 
pension, should he work on this plan; and meantime 
his committee would see to it that he is not over- 
worked and gets full wages for what he produces. 
This would be far better than he could hope to get 
by joining any trades-union. 

As for the employer, he would get the benefit of 
stability of labor, maximum efficiency and resulting 
minimum cost of production. He could of course al- 
ways add the desirable feature of assisting thrifty 
employees to save and invest in the business. 

Extraordinarily strong and rich employers can and 
do, more and more, tie their employees to them with 
golden bands, that Mr. Gompers cannot break. The 
plans of Henry Ford and the Steel Corporation, for 
instance (see Chapter on Profit Sharing) are be- 
yond all praise, based on good sound business prin- 
ciples. 

The great mass of employers, however, are not 
big enough or rich enough to follow suit. Each must 
work out for himself, according to his local condi- 
tions, his own labor problems. Decentralization; 
protection of individual right; freedom of the law 
of supply and demand; and growing education, must 
bring cooperation of his workmen and himself. 

[ 243 ] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

Strike Insurance may help him against the Federa- 
tion, if it becomes necessary to meet the latter that 
way; and stronger appeal to human nature and self- 
interest may be made, such as referred to in an earlier 
chapter, by Profit Sharing, or by Time Contracts, 
more attractive than anything the trades-unions can 
offer. Certainly, having the job to give, as the 
unions have not, the employer is in position to make 
things much more interesting for the laborer than 
Mr. Gompers can. Nothing but lack of percep- 
tion and business sense can prevent the prosperous 
employer from doing so, if he chooses. But first, 
as I have said before, he must be prosperous, a 
Profiteer, as we call him nowadays. 



[244] 



CHAPTER XXXIV 

REMEDIES WITHIN THE TRADES-UNIONS 

As I have shown already, Organized Labor is a 
great big business; a very live and powerful " going 
concern," with an enormous income, netting forty 
to fifty million dollars a year, most of which goes in 
salaries and expense allowances to the professionals 
who run its vast and complex machinery. It pre- 
cisely resembles the great political parties, in that 
its organization and management afford an interest- 
ing, conspicuous, and profitable means of getting an 
excellent living without hard manual labor. 

It is, therefore, a plain and simple matter of busi- 
ness with the leaders of Organized Labor to create 
and maintain " Social Unrest," " Industrial War- 
fare," " Struggle of the Oppressed against the Op- 
pressor," etc., by whatever sounding modern title 
one prefers to call old-fashioned cupidity — the wish 
of those who have not to despoil those who have. 
It pays those leaders richly, though it costs their fol- 
lowing collectively many times as dear, to fan into 
flame the natural rancor that smoulders in the human 
breast, against abler, shrewder, perhaps more selfish, 
and certainly more successful, men, than ourselves, 
who accumulate while we waste. Until this great 
business, this great machinery for financing mischief- 
making, shall cease to pay its creators, " Social Un- 
rest" is sure to persist, and to increase. 

Of course these creators of the Bolsheviki, the 
I. W. W., the Socialists, the Federation and the 

[ 245 ] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

Brotherhoods, and their friends the politicians, can 
and will be fought by the rest of us from without 
their organizations; but as to Labor, it would be a 
happier and nobler thing to bring about a change 
of heart also within the rank and file of the Organ- 
ized Laborers themselves, the great majority of 
whom are well known by all of us to be fundamen- 
tally honest and patriotic Americans. For more than 
half a century they, and millions of unorganized 
men and women, have been taught by demagogues 
that capitalism is robbery; and they are half inclined 
to join in the Bolshevist cry, " Steal from those who 
stole." Their " class consciousness " has been art- 
fully stimulated; the hateful name " scab " has skill- 
fully been stuck by union orators on every man who 
refuses to pay union dues and take union orders. 
They have been " fed up" with the union poison of 
discontent and sloth, with the utterly dishonest and 
disloyal union doctrine which may be stated thus: 
"Take your employer's pay; but take your union's 
orders." 

It should be possible by cooperation of employers, 
of the public, and most important of all, of you 
gentlemen of the press, to prove to all labor — espe- 
cially the union men, whose very association together 
favors dissemination and discussion of the facts — 
the following truths: 

1st. That existing trades-unionism does not pay; but on 
the contrary is enormously costly to all except its 
leaders. 

2nd. That combination to violate the rights of the em- 
ployer and the non-union man freely to pursue their 
lawful business is morally wrong, legally criminal, 
and economically wasteful and stupid. 

3rd. That there is no conflict between Social Justice and 
Capitalism; but on the contrary the nearest ap- 

[246] 



REMEDIES WITHIN THE UNIONS 

proach to Social Justice consists in free operation of 
the law of supply and demand — which produces 
Capital, the only demonstrated foundation for pros- 
perity of Labor. 

4th. That the only true and impartial measure of the 
wages of labor is and always has been found in the 
competition of employers — the "going wages," and 
conditions which they can see their way to offer in the 
open market, consistent with profit in their various 
lines of trade. Employers alone can judge (each for 
himself, according to his peculiar circumstances) 
what they can offer; and employees alone (each for 
himself, according to his individual case) can decide 
what to accept or refuse. 

5 th. That the greatest industry and largest output, con- 
sistent with health and reasonable recreation, is best 
for the prosperity not only of the employer, but of 
the individual workman, the whole industry, and 
the state: and should be a matter of individual and 
union pride and duty. 

6th. That union leadership can be made greatly useful 
instead of useless to Labor itself; profitable instead 
of hurtful to industry and the state; and yet far 
more honorable and remunerative as a personal 
life career for ambitious men than it now is — by 
swinging the great mass and power of Organized 
Labor into cooperation with Capital for highest effi- 
ciency, and highest wages ; instead of fighting always 
for sloth and inevitable poverty. 

7th. That a great field of usefulness and power lies open 
to Organized Labor in Mutual Life and Unemploy- 
ment Insurance, Cooperative Buying, and Employ- 
ment Service : and also in the function of collecting 
accurate information as to wages and trade condi- 
tions, in all industries; to be put at the service of 
shop committees in cooperation with employers; 
for determining standards and methods of efficiency, 
healthful working hours and conditions, and in 
general putting the shop committees in a position of 
informed authority in all negotiations of employment. 

[247] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

8th. That in Amercia no such thing as permanent 
" class " can or ought to exist. That class con- 
sciousness and class hatred and antagonism are 
odious doctrines of Karl Marx, " made in Germany," 
which have no rightful root in free American soil. 
That our gospel is Roosevelt's " Equality of Oppor- 
tunity " ; with reward proportionate to and limited 
only by service rendered. That every man is free 
to move upward to the highest level in life and 
achievement to which his powers and services can 
attain ; and there will be his " class/' if he prefers 
that word, so long as he can stay there, and no 
longer. 

It is an interesting and hopeful sign of evolution 
upwards among the unions to note their progress 
along the lines of cooperative activity. The gar- 
ment workers are in annual convention in Boston 
this week (May 10-15) and are discussing a con- 
solidation of all textile and garment workers in order 
to centralize control of the whole industry from start 
to finish; a project decidedly against the interest of 
the workers and the community also, from my point 
of view. Mr. Sidney Hillmann, the president of 
the garment workers, seems to be, like Gompers, a 
strong autocratic Hebrew, quite willing to run his 
corner of the universe. In one respect, however, his 
ambitions seem legitimate and of value, namely, in 
his suggestions that his followers save their money, 
organize their own cooperative banks, and later go 
on, with the means thus mobilized, to finance their 
own cooperative factories in their own trade. Thus 
the laborers will become the capitalists as well; if 
they are lucky in securing good managers. 

The project is perfectly honest and useful, though 
difficult. In England and elsewhere cooperation has 
now and then developed among the cooperators 
first-class organizing financial and commercial abil- 

[248] 



REMEDIES WITHIN THE UNIONS 

ity, which has evolved great results : and the leaders 
in this work have proved themselves unselfish. The 
Rochdale Cooperative Stores, for instance, do huge 
and profitable business; yet the able men who man- 
age them are content with honor, and influence, and 
small salaries. It may be some time that State So- 
cialism can likewise find men of first ability and un- 
selfishness, who will run everything wisely and well, 
and yet never help themselves to profit as well as 
power and honor. Before jumping at conclusions, 
however, we can well await wider experience. At 
present most trade is non-cooperative, done for 
profit of the man who does it — not for that of his 
customers. So long as cooperation thus meets only 
competition of profit-loaded goods, it has a natural 
advantage that requires only ordinary good manage- 
ment to prosper. On the other hand, whenever 
most of the trade is done on the cooperative plan, 
if that time ever arrives, then a real competition be- 
tween the cooperatives themselves will set in, de- 
manding decisive superiority in management, and 
resulting in survival of the fittest. They will also 
compete among themselves for the good managers 
at rising salaries: and the era of altruism in man- 
agerial positions will pass away. 

The chances are, however, that the present non- 
cooperative, competitive system will endure gener- 
ally, hereafter as heretofore. It puts less strain on 
human nature! Meantime, I see by the morning 
paper that the Boston building trades-unions are 
talking of cooperative building of workingmen's 
homes to relieve rent profiteering. Building trade is 
dull, and work scarce; and the chance for an in- 
teresting experiment is fine. Let us hope the men 
will go to it vigorously, and succeed. 

To originate and create some such change of 
[249] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

union heart and union purpose as the above — 
founded on the virile proposition that every man 
ought to pull his own weight in this world's boat; 
ought to get full pay and give full value in return — 
might easily make Mr. Gompers, for instance, if not 
too old a dog to learn new tricks, a moral figure of 
commanding stature; and an industrial and political 
power — though not so supreme as he may have 
dreamed a year or two ago — far greater than he is 
likely to become today. For this nation is unmistak- 
ably tired of strikes and strike machines; and is 
asking itself whether Judge Gary is really the 
autocrat — or another masterful man, whose name 
begins with G. 

If I were now an active employer instead of a 
mere " has been," I should at once start propaganda 
among my men, openly and aboveboard; calling 
them perhaps to shop-meetings, during paid working- 
hours, often enough to set forth myself, and through 
the mouth of abler speakers, the foregoing truths; 
and should follow up such talks by distribution of 
short and simple printed studies of the different 
elements of the labor situation, one at a time, with 
such proofs as lie within the daily observation of the 
men themselves. Then I would trust to their hon- 
esty and common sense to act in due time upon their 
resulting convictions. I have abiding confidence in 
the American working man, even though he " comes 
from Missouri, and wants to be shown." 

Judging from my own experience, the working 
men would gladly meet in this way the heads of their 
own industries in order to size them and their good 
faith up for themselves — a thing which, in the 
larger concerns at least, is otherwise for the most 
part impracticable. 

[250] 



CHAPTER XXXV 

MALEDICTORY. LEAST GOVERNMENT. LEAST 
BUREAUCRACY. LEAST TAXATION 

One final word and I am done, gentlemen of the 
press, relating to the fundamental basis of efficient 
democracy and political honesty; I mean the Jef- 
fersonian doctrine of minimum activity of the state. 
It was substantially as follows: "That govern- 
ment governs best, which governs least," and it 
seems to me one of the most profoundly states- 
manlike of all his utterances. Of course it is abso- 
lutely foreign to the modern disease or mode of 
thought which I have, not too contemptuously I hope, 
referred to as " collectivitis " ; the feeling that so- 
ciety is so far morally and politically responsible for 
the development of the individual that the latter is 
entirely relieved from the old-fashioned duty of 
carrying his own weight and taking care of himself. 
It is a curious mixture of guilty conscience toward 
the sweat-shop worker, and envy or jealousy of 
Rockefeller, that drives our collectivists blindly into 
government ownership and operation, regulation 
and confiscation of all sorts; right in the face of the 
world-wide, age-long knowledge that bureaucracy 
and graft are inseparable from government, and al- 
ways have been in all history — that the only way to 
minimize them is to minimize government. Equally 
well does the world know from history, not only of 
government but of trade, of all large organization, 
that overgrowth means disintegration, inefficiency; 
that government in business is overgrowth, every- 

[251] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

where and always wasteful, unserviceable — nowhere 
more conspicuously than here at home in America. 
The colossal failure of the present administration 
within the last two years, in a dozen different stabs 
at going into business, for which the taxpayers must 
sweat in years to come, would suffice, one would 
think, to convince the guiltiest of our consciences that 
we should get government out of business and bu- 
reaucracy, and keep it out; to make the hastiest of 
us reflect that state regulation even, without owner- 
ship and operation, means countless bureaucracies 
like the Interstate Commerce, the Federal Trade, 
and the Shipping Commissions. The first of these 
has bankrupted and crippled the most efficient rail- 
roads in the world; the second is doing its best to 
wreck the packers and the coal miners, who have 
dared to sell at prices fixed by world demand, in 
the same way; and the third is doing its best to stop 
the enormous loss it has already inflicted on the 
country where it is, — which is to its credit. All 
three of them have supplied, and will long continue 
to supply, first-class jobs for a host of bureaucrats, 
large and small. Useless bureaucracy, useless taxa- 
tion, are the deadliest poisons, not so slow as sure, 
that demagogy can administer to democracy. You 
and I, gentlemen, may never have the luck to draw 
our share of the useless salaries; but we are dead 
sure, each of us, in his small way, to pay our share 
of the useless taxes. 

What we have to pay now, however, is nothing 
to what we would have to pay, which heaven forbid, 
if in the elections this year or later we substitute 
Gompers for government, as he asks us all to do. 
For the first hundred years of our history we got 
along without Gompers, and with the minimum gov- 
ernment planned by our fathers. We can look back 

[252] 



VALEDICTORY 

with pride on the most unexampled growth in uni- 
versal prosperity known to history. From all the 
nations of the earth poor men came in to share our 
freedom and happiness. Taxation and bureaucracy 
were almost nominal; social unrest was almost un- 
known. There was then no great labor leader of 
millions of followers, and spender of millions of 
dollars income; to manufacture discontent, and tell 
his once industrious and useful workers that the 
secret of success in a democracy is to quit working 
and go to voting; to vote away the fruit of others' 
toil and thrift. For the last forty years we have 
had such leadership; and ten per cent of our work- 
ers have followed him down into the slough of sloth 
and inefficiency, producing less and growing poorer 
and sulkier every day. The remaining ninety per 
cent of American workers are still free and prosper- 
ous, better off than ever before anywhere. Are we 
going to let Mr. Gompers ruin them too, gentlemen 
of the press? 

They are the men who are most endangered, and 
with them our whole enormous efficiency and power 
to help ourselves and the world. Will you not study, 
gentlemen, and make up your own minds as to the 
truth of my contentions; and if you sustain them, 
print their substance broadcast, as need arises, so 
that he who runs may read? It does not matter 
what our collectivists and theorists think or say, pro- 
vided the men who work and the men who hire get 
directly at each other; the one with hearty good will 
to do a good full day's work of the best quality that 
is in him, without fear of being called down by his 
union for so doing — and the other sure of getting 
a good workman and a good output in return for 
good pay, without the threat of a strike hanging 
over every engagement he is called upon to make. 

[253] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

I can assure you, from personal experience and 
correspondence with more than two thousand em- 
ployers, that the foregoing last sentence contains, 
with the keeping of the peace on the public streets 
by local authority, the whole sedative that is needed 
to put social unrest into normal slumber. I am well 
aware, however, that, as Cleveland put it, "we are 
confronted by a condition" which must be changed 
before the simple and healthful relation described 
above can be generally restored. There must be a 
change of heart; labor must break away from Gom- 
pers. His great high-proof labor intoxicant for 
making money out of making mischief must be de- 
natured. We need a Volstead Act applicable to Or- 
ganized Labor to limit the percentage of poison in 
its brew. Labor leadership must no longer attack 
the public welfare! The Law must step in; not, 
however, to perform, but to forbid; to decentralize 
— to say thus far, no farther, mayst thou go! 

It is time to bring this long screed to an end. I 
hope it has not bored you too much, gentlemen; and 
I am too sure of your intelligence and patriotism not 
to feel pretty sure of your verdict should your pa- 
tience review the following, among many official 
utterances of Labor consistently supporting my state- 
ments in these pages, viz. : 

Mr. Gompers' demand of Congress in the Ameri- 
can Federationist of May 23, 1920, namely: 

Immediate " adjustment " of wages to living cost. 
Immediate effective action to prevent increased cost of 

living. 
An end to, and repeal of, all restricting or controlling 

legislation relating to Labor ; past or future. 
To take control of credit capital from private financiers. 
For publicity of income tax returns. 

[254] 



VALEDICTORY 

Mr. Gompers' replies to questionnaire of the Re- 
publican National Committee, demanding: 

Acceptance of the eight-hour day and six-day week, 
Saturday half holiday included. 

Recognition of right to organize. 

Exemption of labor from antitrust laws. 

Recognition of right to choose " outside " representatives. 

Recognition of right to strike even against public wel- 
fare. 

Abandonment of injunction in Labor disputes. 

Free Federal employment agencies controlled by labor. 

Wages big enough to render old-age pensions unneces- 
sary. 

Repeal of Kansas Industrial Court Law. 

Recognition of the secondary strike; and of the boycott 
when there is " left to labor no other course." 

r 

Resolutions of the A. F. L. in session at Montreal ; 
said to include: 

Government ownership of railroads. 

Repeal of Cummins-Esch transportation law. 

No antistrike legislation. 

Election of Federal judges. 

Referendum to override decision of Supreme Courts that 

laws passed are unconstitutional. 
No injunction in strikes. 
Right of teachers in public schools to organize. 
Progressive income and inheritance taxes. 
Federal licensing of all corporations. 

Demands of Organized Labor, presented by 
Mr. Gompers in person to the Platform Committee 
of the Republican National Convention at Chicago, 
June 9, 1920. The substance of most of them ap- 
pears above, but they include also the following : 

At no time shall immigration be permitted when there 

exists an appreciable degree of unemployment. 
Immediate relief from high cost of living burdens. 

[255] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

Monthly statements by the Department of Labor of 
costs of manufacture or production of leading staples. 

Prompt Federal investigation of profits and prices; and 
publicity of income and tax returns. 

Enforcement and extension of eight-hour law in all civil 
departments of government. 

Exclusion of convict labor products from interstate com- 
merce. 

Repeal of labor provisions of the Cummins-Esch Trans- 
portation Act of Congress. 

Action to prevent Federal legislation from being held 
unconstitutional, by the courts. 

Mr. Gompers' own carefully prepared, ten-day 
considered, written reply to Governor Allen's Ques- 
tion during the Carnegie Hall joint debate (which 
he said at the moment he would like to answer " if 
he had time"). The question was, "When a dis- 
pute between labor and capital brings on a strike, 
threatening public peace or impairing public health, 
has the public any rights in such a controversy, or 
is it a private war between labor and capital — and 
how would you protect the rights of the public?" 
Mr. Gompers answers as follows: 

" So far as Labor is concerned, the right to strike will be 
maintained not only as a measure of self-defense and 
self-advancement, but as a measure necessary to public 
progress." 

Later he says : 

" The workers will not sacrifice human progress for an 
abstraction which is called public welfare." 

Consider well the foregoing, gentlemen; and in 
contrast therewith consider " Twelve principles for 
the government of American Industrial Relations " 
just submitted (June 9) by a Committee on the sub- 

[256] 



VALEDICTORY 

ject, to a referendum of the 1300 associations com- 
posing the Chamber of Commerce of the United 
States. They may be briefed as follows: 

1. Any man may engage in any lawful occupation, and 

individually or collectively enter into any lawful 
contract, limited only by valid public authority. 

2. The " open shop " is an essential of the right of in- 

dividual contract. 

3. Any man may voluntarily associate with others for 

any lawful purpose by lawful means ; but associa- 
tion confers no authority over, and denies no 
right of, those who do not voluntarily choose to 
act or deal with the association. 

4. Public welfare and private protection require that 

combination or association of employers or em- 
ployees must be subject to control of the state; 
and be legally responsible. 

5. Adequate and economical output is a common social 

obligation of all engaged in any undertaking. 
Restriction thereof for the creation of scarcity is 
an injury to society. 

6. Wages come out of product, and should be justly 

proportionate thereto. But management is there- 
fore bound to cooperate with the laborer to en- 
able him, and furnish inducement to him, to pro- 
duce; with continuous employment, incentive for 
improvement, and regard to health and safety. 

7. The work day and work week should be carefully 

determined in each industrial case, for maximum 
efficiency consistent with welfare of the worker; 
but reduction of working hours for the sake of 
leisure, merely, should be made only with due 
consideration of the larger interests of the com- 
munity and the nation. 

8. Adequate means and satisfactory to both sides 

should be voluntarily agreed to and established 
for the adjustment of controversies, between em- 
ployer and employees. 

9. In collective bargaining, etc., either party may ob- 

[257] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

ject to representation of the other by outside or 
third parties, not directly interested as employer 
or employee. 

10. The success of the particular establishment, or 

work, with which employer and employee are 
connected is the basis of reward for and the 
common interest of both. Cooperation for that 
success is the true basis of relations between them. 

11. The state is sovereign. No divided allegiance of 

its servants can be admitted; nor any combina- 
tion to prevent normal functioning of govern- 
ment. 

12. In public service the public welfare is paramount. 

State control of public utilities may well extend 
to control of their employees also, to insure con- 
tinuity of service. 

There is nothing more to add to this terse sum- 
mary of the " struggle," — as Gompers would call it, 
— not between Labor and Capital but between Labor 
and an " abstraction which is called public wel- 
fare." Here you have a snapshot, or a "movie" 
if you like, of the labor game, gentlemen of the 
press ! As the last few feet of the film appear upon 
the screen, — that is, as I write out and analyze 
Mr. Gompers' ultimata, and contrast them with the 
12 points of the United States Chamber of Com- 
merce, — I see clearly enough; and you will see, I 
think, that my dream of a great and useful change 
of heart in trades-unionism, as set forth a chapter 
or two back, is hopeless without the elimination of 
Mr. Gompers. His carefully written, deliberate 
reply to Governor Allen, that Labor stands for the 
unlimited right to strike, as a measure of self-defense 
and .^//-advancement (the italics are mine), and his 
public pledge that labor intends to vote that way 
also; his cynical ultimatum that "the workers will 

[258] 



VALEDICTORY 

not sacrifice human progress for an abstraction that 
is called public welfare " ; these things and his whole 
record reveal him as a mere bandit — pure and 
simple; whose predatory following thinks only of 
self; who styles their success in holding up nine 
tenths of the community as " human progress " ; who 
contemptuously brushes aside moral responsibility 
as abstract; but who, like all bandits, is a fool 
as well as a robber. 

"Whom the gods would destroy they first drive 
mad." When Mr. Gompers insolently uses " man- 
datory terms " to a nation of an hundred million 
people, on the strength of a supposed following of 
perhaps two million voters, he reveals a much over- 
rated schemer, who has had his head turned, and is 
riding for a fall. He ought to be repudiated by 
Labor in its own interest. He will not be, however, 
apparently; and the Convention of the A. F. L. now 
in session at Montreal will probably authorize his 
battle of the unions against the United States, which 
I forecasted in 191 2, and which I repeat can have 
but one ultimate issue. Mr. Gompers has so far suc- 
cessfully fought the "One Big Union" idea; but 
there remains another too big for him to tackle, 
namely, the " Union, now and forever, one and 
inseparable." 

Meantime, oh, patient readers, when you seriously 
sum up all these things; whether from the inspiring 
viewpoint of virile and useful citizenship, of honest 
industry and thrift for self-support and the common 
good, of the skilled workman's love for and pride 
in his craft, of unselfish respect for other men's right 
to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness; from the 
average man's viewpoint of common sense and de- 
cent respect for the experience of mankind; from the 
statesman's and economist's viewpoint of good gov- 

[259] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

ernment and efficient industry; or, finally, from the 
comparatively sordid viewpoint of the taxpayer: 

When you realize the petty selfishness of Mr. 
Gompers' ethics, the stupidity of his economics, the 
criminality of his methods, the failure of his pro- 
gram to benefit a human being other than himself 
and his kind; and finally, the menace of his politics 
to free government, and the colossal bureaucracy 
that his proposals would entail both on labor and 
the state ; you will, I am sure, stand with me solidly 
against labor autocracy, and for constitutional gov- 
ernment. 

And, too, I believe that you will stand with me 
sooner or later for just as little government of any 
kind as is consistent with the orderly civilized life of 
a free people. 



[260] 



POSTSCRIPT 

REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC AND AMERICAN 
FEDERATION OF LABOR CONVENTIONS OF I92O 

Since the last chapter was written the Republican 
Party Convention at Chicago, the Democratic Party 
Convention at San Francisco, and the A. F. L. Con- 
vention of 1920 at Montreal have all been held; 
and it is worth while to note in a postscript their 
reactions on each other. 

The Republican Platform discussed Labor (in 
brief) as follows: 

Recognized the justice of Collective Bargaining as a 
means of promoting harmony, etc., between labor 
and capital. 

Denied the right to strike against the government. 

Thinks " government initiative " to reduce frequency of 
strikes and lockouts, and limit their consequences, 
desirable. 

Favors investigatory machinery in public utility labor 
troubles, to " inform public sentiment " to the end 
that there may be "no organized interruption of 
public service " ; same not to function so long as 
service is interrupted. 

Discountenances compulsory arbitration in private labor 
troubles ; but favors " better facilities for voluntary 
arbitration " established by government initiative. 

Opposes government ownership. 

Excludes convict labor products from interstate com- 
merce. 

Evidently the Republican Party would cater to the 
public rebellion against Labor that swept Coolidge 

[261] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

into nomination for the Vice Presidency; and yet — 
not too successfully — seem sympathetic to the "as- 
pirations of labor." Of course Mr. Gompers is not 
at all fooled or content; and comes back at Mon- 
treal with various declarations of war on the Repub- 
lican Party; entirely confirming my prognostications 
in previous pages. His Convention came pretty near 
offering its heart and hand to the Democrats; but 
he managed to hold it in line for non-partisan action, 
and against a Labor Party. It took action, which 
will be briefed a page or two further on. 

When the Democrats met at San Francisco two 
weeks after the Montreal Convention of the A. F. L. 
they passed on the labor planks submitted by Mr. 
Gompers, who was there, just about as evasively as 
the Republicans had done. This is what they said 
(following the order of the Republican discussion, 
as above briefed) : 

Labor "has the indefeasible right of organization, of 
collective bargaining, and of speaking through rep- 
resentatives of their own selection." 

Labor " should not at any time . . . put in jeopardy 
the public welfare." 

"With respect to government service — the rights of 
the people are paramount to the right to strike " ; 
but there is no objection to a raid on the public 
treasury " to bring salaries to a just and proper level." 

" The Democratic Party pledges itself to contrive, if pos- 
sible, and put into effective operation a fair and com- 
prehensive method of composing " labor differences. 

" In private industrial disputes we are opposed to com- 
pulsory arbitration, ... as plausible in theory but 
a failure in fact." 

" There should be ... a thoroughly effective system of 
transportation under private ownership without gov- 
ernment subsidy at the expense of the taxpayers." 

" Labor is not a commodity; it is human. Laws regu- 
[262] 



POSTSCRIPT 

lating hours of labor and conditions, . . . when 
passed in recognition of the conditions under which 
life must be lived, . . . are just assertions of national 
interest in the welfare of the people. . . . Justice shall 
be done to those who work, and in turn those whose 
labor creates the necessities " of life must " recognize 
the reciprocal obligation between the workers and the 



There is a lot more carefully foggy language of 
the same kind intended to "hit if a deer, and miss 
if a calf"; but on the whole Mr. Gompers has got 
nothing very definite out of either of the great Party 
Platforms, except an expression from both political 
groups of willingness to raid the public treasury for 
labor's benefit; and to create a government central- 
ized arbitration and conciliation machinery which 
will "recognize" Organized Labor as the main party 
to all labor disputes; without, however, backing the 
new machinery with any power to enforce its awards 
on anybody. One more addition to bureaucracy at 
Washington would, of course, be repugnant to no 
party politician on either side ; there would be some 
good-sized jobs in it for good party men. 

The A. F. L. Convention adjourned before the 
San Francisco Convention began. Its record was in 
brief as follows: 

June 15. 

Backed Boston police strikers and promised to work for 
their reinstatement. 

Backed New York longshore strikers for " closed shop " 
in the harbor and seacoast transportation employ- 
ments. 

Demanded repeal of the Esch-Cummins Act, restoring 
railroads, etc. 

Voted against recognition of Soviet Russia by the United 
States. 

[263] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

June 16. 

Demanded absolute and immediate curb on profiteering. 

Backed Gompers' non-partisan plan. No Labor Party. 

Approved Irish Republic. 

Would exclude Asiatic labor; though not for race, 
religion, or color. 

Authorized campaign to unionize steel and telephone 
industries. 

Condemned "outlaw" railroad strikers as " secessionists." 

Declared war on Kansas Industrial Court. 
June 17. 

Demanded government ownership and " democratic op- 
eration " of railroads, in this deserting Gompers ; 
who opposed turning over to government the power 
to keep railroad men at work. Frey, supporting 
Gompers, said that there is growing in this country 
an idea that the " welfare of the state is superior to 
the right of individuals " — an idea " believed in 
Germany." 

Raised salaries from Gompers down (against his pro- 
test) of Labor bureaucracy. 

Demanded Government Employment Bureau as part of 
Department of Labor. 

Authorized Executive Council to fight all "speed up" 
and " efficiency " systems, especially in postal service. 

Pledged support to civil service employees in resisting 
demotion. 

Declared right of free speech and assembly to be in- 
alienable, not to be limited by any judge or adminis- 
tration. 

Condemned military training as un-American. 

Voted moral support to striking fur workers. 

Defeated motion to elect Federation officers by popular 
vote of whole Federation. 

Defeated Initiative and Referendum (proposed for 
future questions) to whole membership of Federation 
on demand of five per cent of unions. 
June 18. 

Triumphantly reelected Mr. Gompers President for the 
39th time. 

[264] 



PARTY AND LABOR CONVENTIONS 

Here is the contrast between Labor and Polit- 
ical Leaders sharply outlined. Labor true to form, 
definite, defiant, out for centralized industrial and 
political power; the politicians, also true to form, 
timid, straddling, waiting for the people to show 
them the way even more decisively than they have 
already shown it, — afflicted with that bureaucratic, 
collectivist tendency to meddle with business, that 
has clouded our politics for a generation. 

There exists today a Labor Trust bigger and richer 
than most of the Wall Street Trusts, with concen- 
trated wealth and power such as the American 
people has always jealously guarded against; and a 
record of destructive achievement entirely foreign to 
Wall Street, which last we called down years ago. 
Why do we not call down the Labor Trust now? 

Not one word to that effect appears, however, in 
the Republican Platform, though Governor Coolidge 
was nominated for Vice President with a spontane- 
ous rush because he did call labor down. Dodging 
the subject will not placate Gompers, nor strengthen 
the platform. 

Let me reiterate once more, to the point of bore- 
dom, I fear, that it is not collective bargaining with 
their own employees that employers object to; on 
the contrary, many favor it. It is the cross-union- 
izing of all workers, not by employments, but by 
trades and regions, and the development of the gos- 
pel of sloth, that employers hate ; the integration of 
many local trades-unions into national and interna- 
tional bodies; and the final federation of the latter 
into one great labor trust, which, like a huge cancer, 
roots into every utility and factory in the land, that 
employers dread; that centralization which Gom- 
pers so persistently fights for; that concentration of 
power, that does the mischief. 

[265] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

It is the vast concatenation of organization that 
supplies millions of possible votes, and millions of 
dollars wherewith to pay an hundred thousand 
manufacturers of labor unrest and gatherers-in of 
yet more and more deluded voters and their good 
dollars. It is that endless propagation of labor in- 
fection against which no employer can quarantine 
entirely that makes the disease endemic. And it is 
the perfectly useless blunder, though perhaps inevit- 
able so long as the carriers of the germs are uncon- 
trolled, of government meddling with employers 
and strikers, at haphazard here and there, that 
spreads the contagion from industry into politics; 
to our eternal political undoing, if we do not mend 
our ways. 

Think of it, gentlemen ; a few days ago Mr. Gom- 
pers opened his debate with Governor Allen at Car- 
negie Hall by announcing, with a flourish of trum- 
pets, that the " longshore " strikers in New York 
Harbor were ready to accept arbitration of govern- 
ment in that disastrous dispute. A day or two later 
the papers contained a telegram from Captain 
Maher, the longshore labor leader, announcing that 
the Attorney General (Palmer) had decided that 
the Adamson Law should apply to railroad tugs and 
car-floats at New York; that this would end the 
strike, and that freedom of commerce would soon 
prevail at that great port — whereat great rejoicing! 

You will recall that the Erie Railroad had sold 
some of its surplus tugs to a private non-union tow- 
ing company; which worked its fleet more than the 
eight-hour day called for by the Adamson Law, but 
apparently continued to do some towing for the Erie 
Railroad; and that in consequence a strike was de- 
clared in order to discipline this outsider of all the 
marine workers around New York Harbor, — some 

[266] 



PARTY AND LABOR CONVENTIONS 

70,000 I think, tying up a large part of the com- 
merce of all the railroads and steamship lines of the 
greatest port of the United States; which has cost, 
according to an estimate recently published, a loss 
of 85 million dollars; and which, called by one par- 
ticular member of the Gompers concatenation, at 
one time threatened, so said Mr. Maher, to involve 
all the Eastern railroads in a general strike. 

Think of it once more, gentlemen! It is absurd 
to the point of grotesqueness, that a single railroad 
terminating at New York cannot employ a tugman 
who chooses to work longer than eight hours a day 
(as both he and the railroad should have unques- 
tioned constitutional right to do) and itself alone 
stand the consequences of any disagreement with its 
own men resulting; but its perfectly lawful action 
must involve every road, every shipper in that ex- 
traordinary harbor, perfectly unoffending though it 
or he may be, in helpless paralysis; must cause con- 
gestion of railway traffic, shortage of food and milk 
supply, and interruption of ocean commence, extend- 
ing to every port on the Atlantic Coast and abroad 
— all for the most local and limited of petty dis- 
putes ! Nothing under heaven is blamable for such 
vast and unpardonable wrong but the Gompers con- 
catenation, and the bought-and-sold Adamson Law. 

Of course, in the face of such a blow at modern 
life and commercial freedom, under the very eyes 
of the statue of Miss Liberty, there in New York 
Harbor, government had to interfere, or be held 
to severe account by the people; but think a little 
further, gentlemen, of the utter absurdity of the 
necessity of a pilgrimage to Washington, for such a 
puny cause, of a host of representatives not only of 
the labor trust and the railroads, but of suffering 
shippers, the city, the Chamber of Commerce,— 

[267] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

perhaps they were not all there this time, but they 
have been in other cases, — taking up the over- 
crowded time of the Attorney General of the United 
States with a purely private and insignificant dis- 
pute; while meantime the commerce of that great 
metropolis and the whole seaboard was throttled in 
a "head-lock" such as Evan Lewis, the Strangler, 
uses to bend a Zbyszko to the mat! Is not the whole 
situation too unthinkable? Is free America never 
to be quarantined against the typhus of discontent, 
the sleeping sickness of sloth? Is the tumor never 
to be cut out? Are the tentacles of the Octopus 
never to be severed? (Choose whichever of these 
metaphors most appeals to your imagination or 
wrath, gentlemen; for I would not incautiously mix 
them. ) 

Let me sing once more the song of Decentral- 
ization. It has done labor no good to centralize; 
but the contrary, for forty years. It has gravely in- 
jured commerce, politics, and the silent suffering 
public. Cut it out! Leave men free to organize 
or not as they choose, to deal direct with their own 
employer or strike, as they will. But leave the rest 
of us free to go our busy way. That must be Jus- 
tice, Liberty, and Common Sense. To change 
Lord Dufferin's remark, quoted elsewhere, a little 
— we Americans are a practical people. Why 
don't we back up the Declaration of Independence 
and the Rights of Man; 2m6.gov em these labor trusts? 

Gentlemen of the press, study well the results of 
purely workingman's government in Russia, Aus- 
tralia, and New Zealand. Study the creeping pa- 
ralysis with which Labor in politics is crippling 
England at home and abroad today. Then, see 
to it that here in our beloved America no man shall 
successfully organize Class against Country ! 

[268] 



APPENDIX 

AN OPEN LETTER 

Cambridge, Mass., Nov. ii, 191 8. 

Mr. Samuel Gompers, 

President American Federation of Labor, 
Washington, D. C. 

Dear Sir : — When I commenced this letter, a month ago 
today, you were in historic Rome, the recipient there of the 
same distinguished honors that had just been paid you in the 
great capitals of London and Paris — perhaps the greatest 
ever paid to one calling himself a workingman. There can 
be no mistaking the reason for these honors to yourself and to 
American Organized Labor, which you represented. They 
were due to belief in your patriotism, and that of Organized 
Labor, in giving largest service to your country and the world. 
At the moment of the supremest opportunity to hold up indus- 
try for selfish advantage that is ever likely to present itself, 
American Organized Labor, under your leadership, detesting 
with all its free heart German autocracy, militarism, greed, 
and cruelty, has stood to its tools, to use your own words, in 
" continuous full-power production," for Liberty and Law 
and the Welfare of Mankind. 

Today the war is won. You are back in your own country 
telling your constituents with pride of your and their share 
in the victory. Will you, at this significant moment, permit 
an inconspicuous, disinterested, retired ex-employer of labor 
to direct your busy thought, not too far in advance, he hopes, 
to the continuing and perhaps in the long run equally great 
opportunity for patriotism that confronts labor, now that the 
war is over - — an opportunity which no man can do more to 
avail of than yourself — that of establishing for all time, as 
a dominating working principle, complete and hearty coopera- 

[269] 



LABOR IX POLITICS 

tion between Organized Labor and Capital for that same 
"continuous full-power production"? Believe me, sir, it is 
and must always be, in peace as well as in war time, the prin- 
ciple of patriotism, of greatest sen-ice to all; to labor itself, 
before all. 

o erica ns are busy people; working for our daily 
bread, and slow to comprehend the evil that moral poison 
can work in the hearts of men and nations. It is only in the 
ear or two that Organized Labor, like most of us, came 
to realize the German menace impending on the world, and to 
make up its mind, again to use your words, M that Prussian 
autocracy, militarism, and irresponsible diplomacy must per- 
il as it not of late occurred to you, sir, that all au- 
tocracy, militarism, and irresponsibility, your warn for instance, 
ought also to perish, and probably u ill, at the appointed time? 
you ever stopped to think how frankly Prussian are the 
principles and methods of Organized Labor, as witnessed by its 
long record ; even by your own Annual Report for the current 
year, si ie with its burning denunciation of the Hun? 

Let me rout rancor, set down in plain words the par- 
allel, so that he who runs may read. 

Autocracy. "Labor Omnia Vine: the first words 

printed on the outside cover of the Annual Report of the 
A. F. L. — apparently its " slogan." You stand first of all 
for the autocracy of the Union, for its domination of the 
union man, its monopoly of the right to work ; for the " closed 
shop." You say to the free workingman, join the Union ; to 
the employer, " recognize n the Union. To both, that if they 
obey, the Union will protect them; if not, no mere rights 
rd by Courts will be respected. The non-union man 
and employer have no rights, no liberties. Organized Labor 
omnia tincit. 

Just so, Germany's creed was Deutschlaxd ueber 
Alles; the domination of the German rorld 

domination, tyranny — no self-determination of weaker peo- 
She said to the Alsatian, the Pole, and the Belgian, 
forget your race and liberty; be good Germans, and Ger- 
many will govern you better than you can go* >elves. 
Otherwise, take the consequences. 

Propags itutdon opens with the following 

[270] 



APPENDIX 

words: "Whereas, a struggle is going on in all the nations 
of the civilized world between the oppressors and the op- 
pressed of all countries; a struggle between the capitalist 
and the laborer, which will work disastrous results to the 
toiling millions, if not combined for mutual protection," etc. 
That is to say, if I save my money, build a factory or railroad, 
and offer you a job of work, I am an oppressor. If after 
shopping around among other jobs you like mine the best, 
you are oppressed. The process of shopping around is a strug- 
gle, which will result in the disaster of employment and earn- 
ing your living, unless you join a union to prevent. 

Now, nobody knows better than the astute President of the 
American Federation of Labor that, as a matter of fact, the 
more and bigger employers there are to offer a laboring man 
his choice of jobs, the better for the man. Indeed, the more 
the oppressors, the merrier the oppressed, and the greater the 
disaster, or wages. In Darkest Africa, where there are no 
capitalists, factories, or railroads — in short, no oppressors; 
in India and China, where they are few, wages do not exist 
or are pitifully small, poverty is beyond belief, and famine 
and pestilence constantly impend. Standards of living are 
so low that your Federation vigorously fights the " yellow 
peril " of Oriental immigration to prevent their introduction 
here. 

Of course, this lurid rhetoric of " oppressor " and " op- 
pressed " is mere camouflage; union propaganda for the un- 
thinking; intended to stir up c/aw-consciousness, to create a 
spirit of class-hostility ', here in this free country where we 
have no " classes," or rather where we boast that any man 
can rise to any class his powers permit. 

Just so the Kaiser and the Krupps for fifty years faked a 
bogey of invasion from France, from Russia, even from un- 
preparing England; faked a menace to the very life of the 
German state; chanted the Hymn of Hate to arm the Ger- 
man people against the world ; preached the gospel of attack 
as the best defense; all, as we have learned to our sorrow, 
for the benefit of the fakers only. 

Militarism. For its deliberately provoked " industrial 
warfare" your Federation has built up a highly centralized 
and powerful striking machine (see Report), skillfuly dis- 

[271] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

posed to work at the desired moment a strangle-hold on indus- 
try, local, state, or national as the exigency requires; for the 
coercion of capital, pure and simple, yet always as a measure 
of defense, against " oppression." 

Even so, Germany built up for " defense " the most colos- 
sally aggressive military establishment of all time, basing on 
it the Mittel-Europa and Pan-German imperial designs. 

Predatory Purpose. Your intent is frankly predatory: to 
take from capital by force of organization more pay for the 
same or less work than is obtainable under ordinary condi- 
tions of free supply and demand in the labor market. One 
hundred and ninety-nine Unions proudly claim in your Report 
to have accomplished this. Your method is to introduce or- 
ganizers among a force of workmen, "secretly — of course" 
(see Report, page 87), accomplish organization, call a strike 
if necessary, throw around a picket line, " peacefully per- 
suade " applicants for work to stay away, call them " scab " 
or perhaps slug them if they will not obey; sometimes a 
" wrecking crew " spoils work or dynamites a plant. 

So Germany, with frankly predatory intent to take by force 
from France, Belgium, Russia, Serbia, especially from " rob- 
ber" England, territory, indemnities, mines, colonies, a 
" place in the sun," as Bismarck said, " not by speeches and 
treaties, but by blood and iron," set to work its spy-system 
and propaganda all over the world, created its casus belli, 
mobilized its huge armies, drew its U-boat lines around the 
open seas, " peacefully persuaded neutral nations not to cross 
those lines, sunk their ships if they did, violated law and 
treaties, stopped at no outrage to coerce and loot the world. 

I am well aware that Germany pleaded " military neces- 
sity " for violating Belgium ; and that Organized Labor 
pleads similar necessity of the picket line — that is, the 
actual physical presence of an organized force to prevent by 
words or maybe blows the free and natural action of supply 
and demand in determining the flow and fixing the wage of 
labor — in order to win most strikes, and force wages above 
their natural commercial level. Like von Hertling you say, 
"It is regrettable, but this is industrial war; and all is fair 
in war." Your constant effort to modify the law, so as to 
legalize the picket line; your open political hostility to judge 

[272] 



APPENDIX 

after judge who has ruled against it, establishes your Organ- 
ized Labor's willful breach of law better than any word of 
mine can. A generation ago Allan Pinkerton testified in the 
Mollie Maguire trials that " Organized Labor is organized 
violence," and you yourself were credited by a New York 
paper a few years ago with the remark " A strike without 
violence is a joke." Of course, you deny acts of violence; 
but you put up the cash, as in the Los Angeles Times dyna- 
miting case, to defend union men caught and indicted for 
such acts. 

Doubtless such methods are necessary to win; but do you 
think that the great free, fair-minded, non-unionized 90 per 
cent of the American people, when they put their mind on 
the subject, will stand for Prussianism at home any more 
than in Belgium? 

Irresponsibility. Of minor importance, but characteristi- 
cally Prussian, is your irresponsibility. Union contracts are 
never backed by Union funds; and the latter are as far as 
possible kept out of reach of court process by the expedient of 
non-incorporation of the Unions. For years your Federation 
has worked, lately with some success, for the enactment of 
laws upsetting the old established rule that human labor is 
property for which the laborer may contract, the right in 
which may be protected by :he Courts. Your object in the 
new legislation, already held unconstitutional in several in- 
stances, seems to be greater irresponsibility, as nearly as I can 
understand it ; to protect yourselves from damage suits by rea- 
son of Union acts in breaking up trained and balanced work- 
ing forces, in creating which employers have spent much 
time and money ; and in which they have an actually valuable 
working asset, similar to the " good will " of an established 
trade. Union men have always repudiated Union agreements 
when they felt like it; the leaders simply saying they could 
not hold the men — which was true, and an end of the agree- 
ments. 

Just so German treaties were mere scraps of paper. Today 
her signature must be guaranteed. 

Sloth. Another minor matter, but quite without any Ger- 
man parallel, I think: 

I do not refer to the 8-hour movement, or to the "five 

[273] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

days, five hours, five dollars " talk one hears occasionally ; but 
to your hostility to Taylor-Emerson and like systems for 
speeding up production, the essence of which is the determina- 
tion by careful experiment of the reasonable maximum produc- 
tion that can be required of a man on any given job, without 
overworking him — which last is held by the authors of 
the system to be fatal to quantity and quality alike. You 
have succeeded in getting the Government, always an " easy 
mark " as an employer, spending the taxpayers' money with 
an eye to votes rather than production, to shut out any speed- 
ing up upon government work. You consistently fight full 
production in all collective bargaining. Apparently your idea 
is that so there will be more union men needed to do the 
same amount of work in every plant ; to the ultimate advan- 
tage of union labor. For the same reason you fight piece- 
work, and bonus plans to induce fast men to work fast by 
earning more. 

Mischief-Making. Can you see, sir, the family likeness 
between the dirty work of the German spy-system in stirring 
up trouble for the United States with Mexico, Japan, Nica- 
ragua, and other nations at peace with us and each other ; and 
Organized Labor's tortuous trickery in calling the boycott, 
the sympathetic strike, perhaps the general strike involv- 
ing innocent third parties, even the entire public, in unde- 
served suffering for Labor's own selfish advantage ? It seems 
to me the American people will see it, when they stop to 
think of it. 

Class Legislation. Your constitution sets forth this among 
other objects : " to secure legislation in the interest of the 
working classes." Your Report threatens legislators and 
judges with the labor vote; with loss of office unless they 
make and interpret laws to suit you. The same threat has 
often been made, and sometimes been effective. The passage 
of the Adamson Law just before the last presidential election, 
in trade for or under threat of the labor vote, combined with 
threat of a general railway strike, is a conspicuous instance 
which called forth widespread and indignant comment at the 
time. Your Report indicates your procurement of the pro- 
visions of the Clayton Act, and the Hughes Amendment to 
the Judicial Appropriation Act, exempting Organized Labor 

[274] 



APPENDIX 

from the operation of the Sherman Law against combination 
in restraint of trade. It censures the U. S. Supreme Court 
for protecting Hitchman against emissaries of the United 
Mine Workers, who sought to induce his non-union contract 
workmen secretely to organize and break their contracts by a 
strike ; it scores the District Court for insisting in the Coro- 
nada Coal case that the jury should find a verdict on the facts 
(they did award $200,000 damages against the Union for 
conspiring with union mine-owners to block production and 
sale on non-union coal) ; that the jury should " do the right 
thing as you see it," and not put all parties to the delay and ex- 
pense of a new trial by dodging a verdict. Your Report says 
in commenting on these cases that " the relief from such de- 
cisions lies not only in legislation, but in educating public 
opinion and changing the personnel of the Judiciary so as to 
secure judges who understand economic problems and forces." 

You probably meant judges who understand political prob- 
lems and forces; but do you seriously think that, when the 
issue of the People vs. the Unions is made up and thrashed 
out you can educate American voters to reject lawmakers 
and judges because they will not stand for class legislation? 
No German parallel here either. Germany did not worry 
much about public opinion in class questions. 

Let me turn now to the achievements of your organiza- 
tion as shown in your Report. 

Growth. Your Federation claims 2,726,478 members. 
With the railway unions, I. W. W., Knights, and other or- 
ganizations, there may be a total of 3,500,000 union men and 
women. This is a very considerable number ; yet it is but say 
a thirtieth part of our population, and say a tenth part of 
our wage-working people, — actually a small minority, though, 
in present circumstances, enough to turn an election, if its solid 
vote could be delivered. However, nine tenths of our com- 
mercial, common, farm, and domestic labor are entirely 
unorganized, and are likely to remain so by reason of the in- 
herent difficulty of tying together so many scattered and 
incoherent individuals in so wide a country. Moreover, even 
in the cities a very large body of independent workers prefer 
liberty of action to union control. This body is likely to in- 
crease as workers grow wiser. 

[275] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

Wage Benefits. The detailed reports of some 199 Unions 
embodied in your Report claim by virtue of organization 
wage increases, difficult to analyze and tabulate because in 
different form; but which appear to average not over one 
hundred per cent (doubled, that is) in the last 30 years. 
There is no doubt that union wages have so doubled ; but so 
also, as it happens, have all other wages, in the same period. 
If mere organization has raised the wages of union men, 
what has raised those of ten times as many totally unorgan- 
ized laborers; especially of common laborers, which have ad- 
vanced proportionately most of all? And how is it that 
union wages differ for the same trades in different localities 
(a fact provided for by your Federation's laws), if union 
scales determine wages? Is a union printer more deserving 
in New York than in San Francisco? 

" The tail can't wag the dog," says the old proverb. As a 
matter of fact, wage levels are determined by a very different 
factor ; namely, national productivity of wealth. Every nation 
uses every year substantially what it produces, or exchanges its 
product for ; and conversely under the inexorable law of sup- 
ply and demand it produces only what it can use. In practice 
people do not go on making stuff they cannot use or sell. 
Therefore what we use (in other words our standard of liv- 
ing, expressed in wages and cost of living, whether high or 
low) goes up and down with current annual production. 
In capitalistic countries, where machinery and organization 
of industry are highly developed, production and standards 
of living are high ; higher in this fortunate country than any- 
where else in the world. 

For instance, the Census Reports show that our use of 
motive power in manufacture rose from 0.87 H. P. per 
man employed in 1880 to 2.43 H. P. in 19 10. Meantime 
the value of manufactured product, including raw material, 
rose from $1065 P er annum per man to $2692. Our total 
production of wealth from farms, mines, and factories, rose 
in the same years from $151 per capita of population to $303. 
That is, it substantially doubled for every man, woman, and 
child in the land. 

So also wages and cost of living substantially doubled. In- 
deed they could do nothing else, under the unchanging laws 

[276] 



APPENDIX 

of trade. When production increases there is more to go 
around; more to buy, and more to pay with. One way or 
another the increase is sure to be pretty fairly distributed 
among the producers and distributors, each in proportion to 
his contribution to the whole gigantic work; like the rising 
tide, that seeks always the same level, but flows more freely 
to the broader channel. The old legend says that King 
Canute set his throne at the water's edge, and forbade the 
tide to rise past it. But the tide rose all the same, and the 
King had to move back, or get his feet wet. Just exactly as 
ineffectual are the mandates of Organized Labor to control 
wage levels. 

The real cause of high wages is not labor organization, but 
labor shortage. Their real limitation is not the greed of em- 
ployers, but buyers' prices current; at which a cold-hearted 
and unsympathetic public can be depended on to take the 
goods. Employers are always between the devil and the deep 
sea; they must pay wages enough to man their shops, or shut 
down. They must keep costs within selling prices, or " go 
broke." 

The futility of labor organization in fixing wages is shown 
conclusively in quite another way. The Department of Com- 
merce and Labor tabulated the results of Strikes and Lockouts 
for 1880 to 1905, inclusive — unfortunately not since then — 
covering 36,757 strikes, nine tenths of them by unions, and 
one tenth by unorganized labor. The total of days' labor lost 
in them all came to two thirds of 1 per cent of the full time 
which would have been made had there been no strikes. 
The unions won or partly won in 65 per cent of their strikes ; 
and the unorganized strikers won or partly won in 44 per 
cent of theirs. The efficiency of union over non-union men 
to win a strike may therefore be figured at the difference 
between 65 and 44 per cent, or 21 per cent. But as the 
disputes came to the striking point but two thirds of 1 per 
cent of the time, the net value of your huge labor organiza- 
tion in its own chosen field, winning strikes, as compared with 
now-organization, was actually 21 per cent of two thirds of 
1 per cent, or 14 one-hundredths of one per cent, of the total 
wage involved. That minute fraction of each man's earn- 
ings would come to less than half a cent a day, against union 

[277] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

dues of 2 cents a day; and about 2 cents a day lost in 
striking. 

Sickness and Death Benefits. Your Report shows a con- 
siderable sum paid back by the unions to members in Benefits, 
apparently for last year some $2,767,751. This looks well 
offhand; the Report does not, however, tell what the mem- 
bers paid in for the same year. As your Laws fix a mini- 
mum monthly due, apparently, of 60 cents per man, your 
2,726,478 members must have paid in at least $19,631,000. 
It looks to an outsider as though the difference of some 
$16,863,000 must have gone for running expenses; not a 
very good showing, when one considers that all this expendi- 
ture had practically no effect whatever on wages. The vast 
majority of our American labor, un-organized, got their ad- 
vance just the same, without paying out a cent; while if the 
union members had put their $19,631,000 into almost any 
good industrial insurance company's policies, the benefits re- 
turned would have been far greater. 

Short Hours and Improved Conditions. I incline to think 
that your agitation for shorter hours has done better for 
your members than your pressure for wage increases ; though 
here again the real enabling factor is increased productivity 
due to increased use of power and machinery. The constant 
effort of the modern manufacturer is to increase output of his 
plant and reduce cost and prices to his customer, for the 
purely selfish reason that lower prices mean larger sales, and 
greater profits. His temptation is therefore to run full time, 
and overtime too, if his trade will take his output. But, in 
general, hours run must conform to the necessary conditions 
of each industry. The blast furnace must run 24 hours a 
day ; the morning paper must be printed at night ; the farm 
must work daylight hours at certain seasons. Probably your 
wife's housemaid works more than 8 hours a day; though 
I trust that you are consistent, and work two shifts at home. 

But if in any industry a man or plant can turn out as 
much work in 8 hours as in 10, why work 10? The laborers' 
wish for shorter hours is human, and sympathetic to every 
one ; though not so easy to arrange as a raise of wages. The 
employer's true interest is to ascertain the number of hours 
per shift that best suits the industry; the rate at which each 

[278] 



APPENDIX 

machine can best be driven without overworking the man 
and thus breaking down his productive power ; and the fair 
full output which should be required of him; and then 
adjust conditions and wages so as to attract and hold a suffi- 
cient supply of labor. Surely the workers' interest is exactly 
the same. 

As to working conditions Organized Labor has never 
much concerned itself, but has left them to the philanthropists 
and reformers. The Government Strike and Lockout Report 
above mentioned, out of 36,757 strikes records not one for 
better conditions; while the 199 union reports embodied in 
your annual Report for this year seldom mention or dwell on 
working conditions. 

Productivity. Unionizing undoubtedly reduces produc- 
tivity, and to that extent has been an injury to the community, 
labor itself included. As more machinery and better methods 
overcome this handicap to some degree, reliable comparisons 
between old and present results are hard to make. Most 
closed-shop employers with whom I have talked think that 
free labor is one third more efficient than union labor; and 
that output could be increased 15 to 25 per cent by use of 
the Taylor efficiency system, would the unions permit it, 
with corresponding lowering of prices to the public. 

Economic Effect. As I have shown above, Organization of 
Labor has no power to raise wages. When my own little shop 
in Chicago in 1903 fought an eleven weeks' strike to a finish, 
and came out permanently non-union, and when I found in 
that union-ridden town an abundant supply of determinedly 
non-union labor, I came to regard your great Federation as 
an annoyance rather than a life-and-death menace to my busi- 
ness. Several of my neighbors felt the same way. More 
recently the largest American employer, the Steel Corpora- 
tion, has come to disregard the unions, having devised a plan 
of its own more interesting to its men than union benefits. 
Any prosperous employer can do the same ; and most of them 
probably will in course of time. The world no longer fears 
German militarism, and trade is not afraid as it once was of 
" labor war." Many a workingman has found it to his inter- 
est, as mine found it in 1903, to stick to a job factory rather 
than a strike factory, so to speak. Your whole elaborate ma- 

[ 279 ] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

chinery for coercion seems to me as obsolete as the German 
" goose-step." It can do nothing for labor. 

Neither can your propaganda of hatred; your elaborate 
irresponsibility ; your cult of sloth. Hatred will come home 
to roost, and responsibility will follow it, as today in Berlin. 
Sloth punishes itself from day to day. America need not 
worry over them. 

Political Effect. But I confess, sir, that I worry somewhat 
over your political Kultur ; your effort to mould our laws in 
favor of that strictly limited class, Organized Labor; your 
talk of driving from the bench judges that cannot be scared 
into depriving free men of their old and equal rights. For 
your success would involve our political deterioration ; would 
seep a German poison into the open wells of our democracy. 

Instance the Adamson Law and its consequences. Even 
before the Government took over, as a war measure, our 
railroads, telegraph, telephone, commercial marine, and say 
half our industries, the political temptation to buy and pay 
for the labor vote with special legislation was too great for 
our politicians to resist. They writhed and squirmed and 
called themselves names, but took their medicine and passed 
the law. Today, having taken them over, Government can 
no longer pay the extra cost imposed by the law by " frying 
the fat out of the stockholders ; " so, with perfect consistency, 
it proceeds to fry it out of the shippers, that is, the public. 
Either way, the game is to camouflage a substantial cash 
subsidy to a few hundred thousand voters. 

The question naturally arises, " After the railroad men, 
what class comes up to the captain's office next; and how 
is he going to settle? " It is not so much a matter of high or 
low wages for labor ; it is whether a particular group of voters 
by promise or threat of the ballot, or the general strike, or by 
any other compulsion whatever, shall coerce Government for 
its peculiar benefit. 

Organized Labor has not been the only group that would 
manipulate democracy for selfish purposes ; but your Federa- 
tion, sir, is at present the most conspicuous one. You maintain 
a great legislative agency, your Washington Headquarters, 
there where employers are few but politicians are many, that 
compels attention — as indeed you doubtless mean that it 

[280] 



APPENDIX 

shall — and invites imitation. Already in 19 12-13 several 
groups of lovers of their country had commenced to form, 
east and west, with intent to establish at Washington a like 
conspicuous agency, representing two or three million non- 
partisan voters, as a counterbalance to your labor vote, which 
so cows our politicians. Their purpose was like our entry 
into the war against Germany, — unselfish, disinterested, not 
for the benefit of any class or party, but to make the country 
safe for democracy. The war for the time submerged this 
movement, but it is now due to revive and become powerful. 
It can hardly fail to line up against Prussianism, wherever 
found, against Union Autocracy, against Government Bureau- 
cracy, and especially against partnership between the two. 

Who Benefits by Labor Organizations? As far as an 
outsider like me can judge from the available evidence, the 
laborers of your Federation are spending nearly seventeen 
million dollars a year, from which they derive no benefit 
worth mentioning. The real beneficiaries of this vast outlay 
by these poor men are a few hundred Labor Leaders and 
Organizers, who are maintained in comfortable, conspicuous, 
and influential positions; of whom you, sir, are the chief. 
You are said to be sincere in your devotion to the betterment 
of Labor; not rich yourself, though your ability might easily 
make you so ; but preferring the power and prestige of leader- 
ship to mere cash. Why not then so direct your activities 
as really to accomplish something of value in return for so 
much money and trust; why not do some real good to those 
who have made you great? Let me courteously suggest — 

Education and Cooperation. Why not cut out your 
Kultur of class hatred, coercion, irresponsibility, and sloth; 
your plan to hold up Capital, which will only hold back 
industry? Why not dismantle your huge useless striking 
machine; and spend some of the millions it costs in creating 
a great bureau of expert investigation, to make you and your 
constituents as well aware of the actualities and possibilities 
in each line of industry as are now the captains and capitalists 
thereof ? 

If you did so, perhaps the first thing you would learn is 
that even if you kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, labor 
cannot get anything worth mentioning out of Vanderbilt and 

[281] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

Rockefeller. Your experts would take the Census Bulletin 
of 191 7, and show you that all the wealth of the United 
States came to 187,739 millions of dollars; that there were 
say 42 millions of wageworkers; that if Government owned 
it all, and Rockefeller et al. owned nothing; and if under 
Government management it paid 5 per cent per annum as 
under Rockefeller — which is begging a very large ques- 
tion — then each wageworker would draw say $220 per 
annum more than present wages, Rockefeller getting nothing. 
That comes to 73 cents extra for each wageworker, no more, 
per diem. 

How far could that small sum go to satisfy the vague as- 
pirations of Labor commonly called Social Unrest ? Not very 
far, alas. It would be forgotten in a month, if received ; but 
probably would never be realized at all under government 
management. 

The next thing your experts would show you is that in 
all history it has never paid any country, least of all its poor 
folk, to plunder its capitalists — as indeed unhappy Russia 
is showing the world today — or to establish government 
monopoly of industry. Also, that in all history government 
has lived off the people, and not the people off the government ; 
and until human nature changes, this will always be so. 

Finally, your experts would make clear to you that, 
whether Government owns and operates everything, or 
Rockefeller et al. own it all — either way you and I would 
fare just the same — we Americans can divide up amongst 
ourselves from year to year no more than we produce, or 
exchange our produce for. We cannot, even with the aid 
of the Federation of Labor, share what does not exist. There 
is only one way for us to be better off next year than this; 
and that is to produce more. 

What laboring men ought to know, and what you labor 
leaders, with your greater ability, your organization and 
prestige among them, are morally responsible for teaching 
them, is the great economic fact that only greater production 
can make a community more prosperous; that the man who 
finds work for a thousand men and sells their output to ten 
thousand others is worth to the community say a hundred 
times as much as any one of his workers, and justly receives 

[282] 



APPENDIX 

an hundredfold reward; and finally, that the best thing a 
laborer can do for himself is to team up and pull with his 
employer, in hearty good fellowship. 

You yourself pat it better than I can, in your annual Re- 
port so often quoted : to win the war, you say, there must be 
" continuous full-power production," which " depends on the 
morale of the workers," which in turn derives from " efficient 
cooperation " between " creative labor power and controllers 
of capital." 

Constructive Suggestions. But why stop full-power 
production with the end of the war ? In peace as in war every 
man's duty is greatest service to the greatest number ; and in 
performing it lies his chance of greatest reward. Equality 
of opportunity is his democratic and inalienable right; in- 
equality of reward his democratic and inevitable justice, — 
"social justice;" the more useful the man the greater the 
reward. You, sir, have always been clear-headed enough to 
•fight State Socialism — probably you perceive that it would 
be the death of Trades-Unionism — and you recognize as 
above the value of the capitalists. Why not then go on vigor- 
ously, in this difficult time of after- war readjustment, with 
that hearty cooperation between Labor and Capital which 
has paid you so well as a war measure? 

These are times of high, unselfish purpose. Why not, as 
a constructive program, drop your creed of monopoly and 
coercion ; drop class hatred and the odious word " scab ; " 
incorporate, become responsible, back union contracts with 
union funds, so that they shall no longer be mere scraps of 
paper; drop sloth, and guarantee the work of union men; 
ordain that union committees shall regularly cooperate with 
employers to determine wages, hours, pace, and conditions for 
continuous full-power production, paying each man according 
to work done ; unionize locally by shops instead of nationally 
by trades, so as to limit each laborer's and employer's troubles 
to his own job, instead of tangling him uselessly in those of a 
thousand others; let every shop be "open," and depend on 
the union contract and standards of work and guarantee to 
secure preference for the union man ? 

I think, sir, that employers would welcome such coopera- 
tion as this with open arms and pocketbooks; that not only 

[283] 



LABOR IN POLITICS 

Labor but the entire community would fare better than ever 
before ; and that the Labor Leaders whose breadth and honesty 
of purpose should culminate in such birinesslike fashion 
would deserve and enjoy such standing and esteem among all 
their fellow citizens as they can never hope for while they 
profess and practice Prussianism. 

Conclusion. On the other hand let me warn you against 
the dangers of the political course you seem to be pursuing. 
As Lincoln said, "You cannot fool all the people all the 
time." In our democracy the ballot is every man's legitimate 
and peaceful weapon against class privilege of every nature; 
it is not his club for coercion of government, legislature, or 
judiciary, into creation of class-privilege. Should Organized 
Labor rouse the ballot against itself — should the issue ever 
be made up and fought squarely, American fashion — do you 
not think that the People against Organized Labor, the U. S. 
against the Unions, say nine to one, will be intelligent enough, 
and just enough, to protect the nine against the one? Why 
not take heed, sir, to the disasters that befell Kaiserism on the 
one hand, and Bolshevism on the other? 

Respectfully yours, 

CHAS. NORMAN FAY. 
P. S. Nov. 17th. 

Since the foregoing was penned comes your Laredo speech 
of yesterday, which rather discourages my appeal to broad 
labor-leadership. You say that Organized Labor made " sac- 
rifices," and gained " advantages " not to be taken away; that 
it will resist all attempt to force down wages and lengthen 
hours. 

Now, the sacrifices consisted in working for the shortest 
hours and longest wages ever known; paid not out of value 
produced, but out of Liberty Loans and colossal taxation. 
No very great sacrifice, that! Yet you serve notice that ad- 
vantage, and not patriotism, was what you backed your coun- 
try for ; and that Labor intends to wring out of trade in peace 
what it wrung out of taxes in war! 

Well, to use two caustic old farm phrases, organized Labor 
must "skin its own — polecats," and learn to its sorrow, 
some time, that it " cannot milk a dry cow." 

[284] 



